Where's the Free Market Going with Commercial Space Development?

On Sep 18, 2:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:24*pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
Am I immortal? *I don't know. *But there is reason to believe nearly
all of us alive today may be. *If you track longevity over time, you
will see that it is a hyperbolic function that reaches infinity in
2200 AD.

If you track transportation technology over time, we invented faster
than light travel about five years back. *

So? *What's your point?

His point is that you're delusional.

No it isn't.

He's right.

About what Freddie? What you imagine is being said is itself a
delusion. Interesting how everything in life is a mirror to your
madness isn't it? lol.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

On Sep 18, 10:30*am, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:43:37 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
So when has that type of extrapolation ever worked out in real life?

Moore curve.

Not to infinity. *

So?

You asked when has any extrapolation ever worked? Well Moore's law
does provide an existence proof of exponential growth (doubling
transistor count every two years) of something that was extrapolated
from 1958 through 1965 and proceeded to continue pretty much this
level of growth through 2008.


We've had several generations who have projected such an increase, but
none based upon a real understanding on how we break down and die.

Not so

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iYpxRXlboQ

Same old stuff each generation finds.

Our understanding of microbiology is light years ahead of what is was
before 2000.

So, I gotta wonder what generations are you talking about?

Leonard Hayflick discovered the Limit named after him in 1961, which
is the biological basis of aging at the cellular level. Alexey
Olonikov discovered showed that the Hayflick Limit was associated with
shortening of Telomeres in 1973, and he predicted the existence of
Telomerase at that time. Carol Grieder and Elizabeth Blackburn
discovered Telomerase in 1984. Telomerase is associated with cellular
doubling in fetal development and in immortal human cells - that are
cancerous. Cancer cells express telomerase constantly. Fetal cells
do so only at certain stages of mitosis. Current research is
examining how telomerase expression is controlled in Fetus cells to
avoid cancer like conditions.

A variety of premature aging syndromes are associated with short
telomeres. These include

Werner syndrome,
Ataxia telangiectasia,
Bloom syndrome,
Fanconi anemia and
Nijmegen breakage syndrome.

The genes that have been mutated in these diseases all have roles in
the repair of DNA damage, and their precise roles in maintaining
telomere length are an active area of investigation.

It is suspected that telomere erosion contributes to the normal aging
process. So, maintenance of DNA in general and telomeric DNA may have
specific roles to play.

Dr. Michael Fossel director of anti-aging research at Michigan State
has suggested telomerase therapies will be used combat cancer and
premature aging syndromes and actually get around human aging which
will extend lifespan significantly within the next 10 years. (by
2020) Fossel is beginning human trials of telomerase-based therapies
for extending lifespan will occur within the next 10 years.

This timeline is significant because it coincides with the retirement
of Baby Boomers in the United States and Europe.

haha - So, its not the same old things earlier generations thought.
Aubrey DeGrey's program wasn't possible prior to 2000 dude. If you'd
trouble yourself to actually listen to his TED speech, you'd find we
didn't know enough biology prior to 2000 to even think DeGrey's
program was possible, let alone how to do it.

We are making progress. I grant that infinity is a long time. But,
given our current state maintaining the physical vitality of a 30 year
old by changes wrought in the cellular mechanisms through the age of
300 - would represent a huge change in human society. Such a change,
which is far short of infinity would seem like infinity to those of us
alive today, and it would inspire research focused on even greater
improvements in longevity over that span that would extend life beyond
300 within 300 years.


--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Sep 18, 11:19*am, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article ,
William Mook wrote:

On Sep 5, 8:13*pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
Am I immortal? *I don't know. *But there is reason to believe nearly
all of us alive today may be. *If you track longevity over time, you
will see that it is a hyperbolic function that reaches infinity in
2200 AD.

So when has that type of extrapolation ever worked out in real life?

Moore curve.

That's not a law, it's an investment strategy. *

Its a law that guides investments.


If the semiconductor
industry quits working that way, a whole lot of people will find they're
at the edge of a cliff, so they spend a lot of money to make sure that
they don't.

Agreed. Yet, you are making a false choice. Just because you don't
understand the physics involved - doesn't mean the physics don't drive
it.

If you'd trouble yourself to actually read Gordon's initial 1965 paper
you would see that he made it pretty clear, doubling of transistor
count every two years was based on the physics of making integrated
circuits which arose from the physics of the process.

http://www.computerhistory.org/semic...965-Moore.html

Pretty much every technology ends up following the logistic growth
curve.

Given the size of atoms and the size of circuits in 1958 - it was easy
to see that there was plenty of room at the bottom - making things
smaller

http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html

Atoms provide a limit to this technical approach. So, there is a law
of diminishing returns - using this physical approach. Those limits
are easy to see.

http://www.zdnet.com/news/faq-forty-...res-law/142082

And we will likely find diminishing returns in this process of making
circuits within 10 years and reach the limit of growth in 30.

Even so, well before that time, we will develop other physical
processes with other limits that circumvent the limits of the way we
do things today.

The simplest is moving beyond the planar approach of circuits on
wafers, and use three dimensions instead of two.

A silicon atom is 0.234 nm. Lattice spacing is 0.543 nm. A square
inch of wafer material costing $1 - holds 2.188e+15 atoms on its
surface (assuming the right Miller number). If we say this is the
limit of a planar array, we can see that we're pretty close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NA...g_timeline.png

with 1 nm scale systems September 2011. After that, we have until
2013 to reach the lattice spacing limit.

But, if we can make use of all the lattice points of a 925 um thick
wafer - have another 1.7 million lattice points to play with. This is
20.7 doublings, and another 41.4 years of Moore's law. This takes us
to February 2053.

So, 2 quadrillion circuits per $1 in September 2011.
and, 3.7 trillion trillion circuits per $1 in February 2053.

The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the one hundred
billion (1e+11) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to
other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-
old child has about 1 quadrillion synapses. This number declines with
age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging
from 100 trillion to 500 trillion.

Of course, as circuits get smaller, they get faster, the speed of
light being what it is. This gives rise to the Bekenstein Bound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Which gives us the ultimate thermodynamic limit available in this
universe. Its worth noting we're nowhere near the limit. A subatomic
black hole with an engineered surface near its event horizon would
achieve it - if we knew how to build one. We don't but we might build
machines that can solve this problem for us - and make machines that
put both humans and them to shame in terms of their capability.

Synaptic potentials are activated no more than 100 times per second.
So, this gives us a range of speeds and complexities that are needed
to match human brain function - which is why we're far below the
Bekenstein bound. We have achieved the physical capacity already to
equal human brain function for $1 now. We will have the means to
equal ALL HUMAN BRAINS SIMULTANEOUSLY for $1 by 2053.

And even that will not equal the Bekenstein bound by even a small
amount.

This has led some to suggest we are heading for a technological
singularity as human level computing is attained sometime within the
next 10 to 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

So, physics is telling us something very important here. We have no
limits as we think of them. Not yet. Growth can continue, if we wish
it to continue.

What do we want that growth to express?

Our fears or our hopes? Our anger or our love?


Mark Zenier *
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

On Sep 20, 3:20*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:46*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:13*pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
Am I immortal? *I don't know. *But there is reason to believe nearly
all of us alive today may be. *If you track longevity over time, you
will see that it is a hyperbolic function that reaches infinity in
2200 AD.

So when has that type of extrapolation ever worked out in real life?

Moore curve.

Nope. *

Yes. *Anyone who says the Moore curve hasn't worked out in real life
just isn't aware of what has transpired over the past FIFTY years in
the field of computer science and electronics! *lol.

Nope. *

Yes.

Your 'logic' (and I use that term as loosely as possible to fit
you within it) is that it will continue indefinitely. *

Never said any of that Freddie, and neither did Gordon. In '65
extrapolating from 1958 data he thought it would last maybe 10 more
years. Its lasted 50!! That's an extrapolation that's worked! Which
is what Howard asked for and to which I was replying.

NOBODY believes
that.

Nobody believes you Freddie.



Even Moore says we're coming to the end of that.

You're misquoting Gordon Freddie.

Hogwash, you ignorant git.

No, if you'd actually read the 1965 paper he thought it might last 10
years in 1965 - the extrapolation made in 1965 from data starting in
1958 lasted well beyond 1975 - which is an example of something Howard
was asking about.


Mookie's proof that he can read and plagiarize Wikipedia elided


Try this and educate yourself.

http://news.techworld.com/operating-...-law-is-dead-s...

Try understanding what I write rather than saying hurtful things -
IEEE projected that feature sizes would approach 1 nm by Sept 2011
Freddie - no one said Moore's law was under pressure given lattice
spacing was 0.54 nm.



Moore's prediction has been accurate for over 50 years. *Thus
providing an answer to Howard's question.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

*You ASSUME that lifespan will continue to increase as
it has in the recent past.

No I didn't. I gave Moore's law operating from 1958 through 2008 and
extrapolated in 1965 as an example of an extrapolation that actually
worked - which is what Howard asked for. You are the one coming up
with wrong conclusions based on willful misreading of what I've said.

*There are *NO* examples that support that
sort of thing anywhere,

So?

and PARTICULARLY not in the world of
semiconductors.

Bull****. Moore's Law is an extrapolation made in 1965 on only 7
years of data that Gordon Moore said would last maybe through 1975.
It has lasted well beyond that making it an example of an
extrapolation that worked - which is what Howard asked for.



Care to try again?

Care to say something accurate?

Care to return to the reality the rest of us are using?

You're the only one spouting delusional bull Freddie.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
*man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
*all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --George Bernard Shaw

On Sep 20, 3:22*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:47*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:24*pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
Am I immortal? *I don't know. *But there is reason to believe nearly
all of us alive today may be. *If you track longevity over time, you
will see that it is a hyperbolic function that reaches infinity in
2200 AD.

If you track transportation technology over time, we invented faster
than light travel about five years back. *

So? *What's your point?

His point is that you're delusional.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.



He's right.

About what Freddie?

About you being delusional. *

Nonsense.

Boy, I've heard of short attention spans,

Heard? I think you have one.

but to be unable to make it from one sentence to the next must set
some sort of record, Mookie.

You're the only one not making any sense Freddie. Try breaking the
pills in half and taking them before meals.



What you imagine is being said is itself a
delusion. *Interesting how everything in life is a mirror to your
madness isn't it? *lol.

Is this where you spin around and disappear up your own asshole?

I'll leave that up to you Freddie.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

On Sep 20, 3:24*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:30*am, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:43:37 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
So when has that type of extrapolation ever worked out in real life?

Moore curve.

Not to infinity. *

So?

So you failed to answer the question.

What question do you imagine I failed to answer Freddie? Howard asked
when an extrapolation worked out in real life and I gave him one that
was made in 1965 based on 7 years of data - which the author said
might last through 1975. The extrapolation worked out in real life
through 2008 - which is pretty damned good.




You asked when has any extrapolation ever worked?

No he didn't. *He asked "when has that type of extrapolation [to
infinity and beyond] ever worked out in real life?"

He didn't say to infinity and beyond - you did. Haha and you can't go
beyond infinity! lol. You must get your entertainment the same place
you get your education TOY STORY. lol.

Reading is REALLY not your strong suit, is it?

That would be you Freddie

Mookie Mewl Munched

You ignore what you don't understand and cannot spin into your brand
of bull****. Your life must be short brutal and painful. I feel
sorry for you Freddie.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

On Sep 20, 3:31*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:19*am, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article ,
William Mook wrote:

On Sep 5, 8:13*pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
Am I immortal? *I don't know. *But there is reason to believe nearly
all of us alive today may be. *If you track longevity over time, you
will see that it is a hyperbolic function that reaches infinity in
2200 AD.

So when has that type of extrapolation ever worked out in real life?

Moore curve.

That's not a law, it's an investment strategy. *

Its a law that guides investments.

It's not a 'law'.

Its described as such in his 1965 paper.

*It's a short term observation that even Moore says
is just about over.

50 years and 25 doublings of transistor count isn't short term.





If the semiconductor
industry quits working that way, a whole lot of people will find they're
at the edge of a cliff, so they spend a lot of money to make sure that
they don't.

Agreed. *Yet, you are making a false choice. *Just because you don't
understand the physics involved - doesn't mean the physics don't drive
it.

And it's physics that will end it.

So, its a valid extrapolation that has worked in the real world.
Other extrapolations based as soundly on research can also be made in
other areas. If as in the case of Moore investment dollars and
research effort are directed at the appropriate fundamentals,
tremendous changes can be wrought in our world - just as tremendous
changes in computing that we have seen over the past 50 years. We can
live in a world of peace and plenty, a world where everyone has
routine access to interplanetary space, a world where we live for a
very long time. These are all possible. All it takes is focus on the
appropriate ends based on a sound understanding of the fundamental
physics. This happened with Moores law, it can happen with similar
laws that focus on similar fundamentals appropriate to the core
science involved.



If you'd trouble yourself to actually read Gordon's initial 1965 paper
you would see that he made it pretty clear, doubling of transistor
count every two years was based on the physics of making integrated
circuits which arose from the physics of the process.

If you were capable of actually understanding what you read and cite
you wouldn't appear to be such a buffoon.

I'll leave that one to you Freddie, you're doing such a good job at
it.

Mookie Mewling Munched



But, if we can make use of all the lattice points of a 925 um thick
wafer - have another 1.7 million lattice points to play with. *This is
20.7 doublings, and another 41.4 years of Moore's law. *This takes us
to February 2053.

Moore disagrees. *

No he doesn't He believes that planar systems will reach their
ultimate limit September 2011 just like I said. You are being
dishonest Freddie, that's the only way you can continue your little
game isn't it? haha. You erased the paragraph preceding where I said
we'll reach 1 nm by Sept 2011 - this is precisely what everyone is
talking about. We'll have to do something else if we want to
progress. That something else is operating on the volume of the
wafer, not just the surface.

I'll believe him before I believe you.

We don't disagree. You merely edited my reply to make it seem so.
You re being dishonest. Gordon sees the importance of doing something
different than has been done in the past 50 years - this is the point
of his talking about this. To urge investments in other directions -
like volume processing rather than planar processing.

Mookie Mewling Masticated



This has led some to suggest we are heading for a technological
singularity as human level computing is attained sometime within the
next 10 to 20 years.

'Futurists' and other loons. *

Moravec is not a loon. You are. Notice the difference Freddie.

Moore made a sound observation in 1965 and extrapolated based on 7
years experience that he thought would last maybe until 1975. That
extrapolation has remained steady for 50 years - so its a real world
example of something that has worked despite the fact that we are
reaching its limits. Those limits were well known at the outset, and
we needed to invest in other programs as well as the one Moore
identified. We have not developed a diversity of processing methods -
we have perfected one. This is what Moore is talking about today.

Such are almost inevitably wrong.

Moore is an example of someone who focused on the fundamentals of
something he understood well, and made a sound extrapolation about
changes in the future. His success inspired generations of investors
and engineers to maintain the growth he suspected in 1965 was
possible. Around the 25 generations of success over the past 50 years
as arisen a vast new industry that has transformed the world. This is
a model that is right - and a model we would do well to emulate in the
future to create the sort of future we desire and deserve.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

So, physics is telling us something very important here. *We have no
limits as we think of them. *Not yet. *Growth can continue, if we wish
it to continue.

Again, Moore (and most other people with a clue) disagree.

You do have difficulty understanding context. Moore is urging the
investment community and engineering community that has brought about
the 25 generations of doublings to focus their attention on other
things. He doesn't believe growth is impossible. He believes he may
have caused investment and engineering talent to be less diverse than
it needs to be to sustain growth he feels would be possible if it were
more diverse.

*Even your
own cite says it.

No my cite says that the extrapolation made in 1965 based on data
going back to 1958 - might last until 1975. That extrapolation lasted
through 2008 - and spawned a new industry. Its a good example of how
progress is made in this world. And how that progress can exceed
everyone's expectations. Its a solid answer to Howard's question.
Its a good model for making progress in space and in medicine.

"Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility
of a technological singularity, including Jeff Hawkins, John Holland,
Daniel Dennett, Jaron Lanier, and Gordon Moore, whose eponymous
Moore's Law is often cited in support of the concept."

Yes, but if you ever spoke with Moore you would realize that Moore is
speaking about very specific reservations about his law. Its not as
black and white as the cite.

He wants people to understand the limitations - and more importantly -
what is required for growth. He wants us to understand that growth
will not come automatically as the result of any law. It comes from
efforts being properly directed and supported. He worries that his
law is being over-relied upon to direct growth.

Moore's law is a good example of an extrapolation that has worked in
the real world. Moore would say we need more of them. I am saying
that too.

You are mindlessly decrying the possibility of radical progress. This
is worse than mindlessly saying that Moores law will bring us
nirvana. Both are bad, since we need to really understand the details
of a thing in order to think usefully about it. You have demonstrated
an abject inability to think clearly about anything Freddie - and a
propensity toward dishonesty that will only hurt you in the end.



What do we want that growth to express?

Our fears or our hopes? *Our anger or our love?

Our Mookie Mewling?

You are a good example of what is wrong with the world Freddie. You
make me despise you more with every post. That is something I do not
wish to feel, but you inspire that feeling in me more deeply with
every word you utter. I hate you Freddie, and I'm someone who would
rather not hate anyone. I suppose as long as you persist in your
dishonest hateful and hurtful diatribes against me, you DO have to
worry about your continued safety and happiness. That is something I
would rather not even think is a remote possibility - but I must say
it to be honest. If I ever met you in person, I don't think you would
be safe. So, you're probably right. Even so, I find it very
distasteful to say this - and I feel whenever I read anything you say,
or after I reply to anything you've written - I feel unclean in the
extreme. That is the effect you have on me, and I am certain you
have that effect on others. To me you are unclean vermin and I
believe more and more the world would be far better without you in it
- and I think more and more how that could come about. Again, I don't
like thinking these things - and I'd much rather think kindly toward
all people - but you are a special case - you've made yourself such
with your continuing persistent abuse of me and all I hold dear.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

On Sep 20, 3:31 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:19 am, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article ,
William Mook wrote:

On Sep 5, 8:13 pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
Am I immortal? I don't know. But there is reason to believe nearly
all of us alive today may be. If you track longevity over time, you
will see that it is a hyperbolic function that reaches infinity in
2200 AD.

So when has that type of extrapolation ever worked out in real life?

Moore curve.

That's not a law, it's an investment strategy.

Its a law that guides investments.

It's not a 'law'.

Its described as such in his 1965 paper.

It's a short term observation that even Moore says
is just about over.

50 years and 25 doublings of transistor count isn't short term.

If the semiconductor
industry quits working that way, a whole lot of people will find they're
at the edge of a cliff, so they spend a lot of money to make sure that
they don't.

Agreed. Yet, you are making a false choice. Just because you don't
understand the physics involved - doesn't mean the physics don't drive
it.

And it's physics that will end it.

So, its a valid extrapolation that has worked in the real world.
Other extrapolations based as soundly on research can also be made in
other areas. If as in the case of Moore investment dollars and
research effort are directed at the appropriate fundamentals,
tremendous changes can be wrought in our world - just as tremendous
changes in computing that we have seen over the past 50 years. We can
live in a world of peace and plenty, a world where everyone has
routine access to interplanetary space, a world where we live for a
very long time. These are all possible. All it takes is focus on the
appropriate ends based on a sound understanding of the fundamental
physics. This happened with Moores law, it can happen with similar
laws that focus on similar fundamentals appropriate to the core
science involved.

If you'd trouble yourself to actually read Gordon's initial 1965 paper
you would see that he made it pretty clear, doubling of transistor
count every two years was based on the physics of making integrated
circuits which arose from the physics of the process.

If you were capable of actually understanding what you read and cite
you wouldn't appear to be such a buffoon.

I'll leave that one to you Freddie, you're doing such a good job at
it.

Mookie Mewling Munched

But, if we can make use of all the lattice points of a 925 um thick
wafer - have another 1.7 million lattice points to play with. This is
20.7 doublings, and another 41.4 years of Moore's law. This takes us
to February 2053.

Moore disagrees.

No he doesn't He believes that planar systems will reach their
ultimate limit September 2011 just like I said. You are being
dishonest Freddie, that's the only way you can continue your little
game isn't it? haha. You erased the paragraph preceding where I said
we'll reach 1 nm by Sept 2011 - this is precisely what everyone is
talking about. We'll have to do something else if we want to
progress. That something else is operating on the volume of the
wafer, not just the surface.

I'll believe him before I believe you.

We don't disagree. You merely edited my reply to make it seem so.
You re being dishonest. Gordon sees the importance of doing something
different than has been done in the past 50 years - this is the point
of his talking about this. To urge investments in other directions -
like volume processing rather than planar processing.

Mookie Mewling Masticated

This has led some to suggest we are heading for a technological
singularity as human level computing is attained sometime within the
next 10 to 20 years.

'Futurists' and other loons.

Moravec is not a loon. You are. Notice the difference Freddie.

Moore made a sound observation in 1965 and extrapolated based on 7
years experience that he thought would last maybe until 1975. That
extrapolation has remained steady for 50 years - so its a real world
example of something that has worked despite the fact that we are
reaching its limits. Those limits were well known at the outset, and
we needed to invest in other programs as well as the one Moore
identified. We have not developed a diversity of processing methods -
we have perfected one. This is what Moore is talking about today.

Such are almost inevitably wrong.

Moore is an example of someone who focused on the fundamentals of
something he understood well, and made a sound extrapolation about
changes in the future. His success inspired generations of investors
and engineers to maintain the growth he suspected in 1965 was
possible. Around the 25 generations of success over the past 50 years
as arisen a vast new industry that has transformed the world. This is
a model that is right - and a model we would do well to emulate in the
future to create the sort of future we desire and deserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

So, physics is telling us something very important here. We have no
limits as we think of them. Not yet. Growth can continue, if we wish
it to continue.

Again, Moore (and most other people with a clue) disagree.

You do have difficulty understanding context. Moore is urging the
investment community and engineering community that has brought about
the 25 generations of doublings to focus their attention on other
things. He doesn't believe growth is impossible. He believes he may
have caused investment and engineering talent to be less diverse than
it needs to be to sustain growth he feels would be possible if it were
more diverse.

Even your
own cite says it.

No my cite says that the extrapolation made in 1965 based on data
going back to 1958 - might last until 1975. That extrapolation lasted
through 2008 - and spawned a new industry. Its a good example of how
progress is made in this world. And how that progress can exceed
everyone's expectations. Its a solid answer to Howard's question.
Its a good model for making progress in space and in medicine.

"Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility
of a technological singularity, including Jeff Hawkins, John Holland,
Daniel Dennett, Jaron Lanier, and Gordon Moore, whose eponymous
Moore's Law is often cited in support of the concept."

Yes, but if you ever spoke with Moore you would realize that Moore is
speaking about very specific reservations about his law. Its not as
black and white as the cite.

He wants people to understand the limitations - and more importantly -
what is required for growth. He wants us to understand that growth
will not come automatically as the result of any law. It comes from
efforts being properly directed and supported. He worries that his
law is being over-relied upon to direct growth.

Moore's law is a good example of an extrapolation that has worked in
the real world. Moore would say we need more of them. I am saying
that too.

You are mindlessly decrying the possibility of radical progress. This
is worse than mindlessly saying that Moores law will bring us
nirvana. Both are bad, since we need to really understand the details
of a thing in order to think usefully about it. You have demonstrated
an abject inability to think clearly about anything Freddie - and a
propensity toward dishonesty that will only hurt you in the end.

What do we want that growth to express?

Our fears or our hopes? Our anger or our love?

Our Mookie Mewling?

You are a good example of what is wrong with the world Freddie. You
make me despise you more with every post. That is something I do not
wish to feel, but you inspire that feeling in me more deeply with
every word you utter. I hate you Freddie, and I'm someone who would
rather not hate anyone.

On Sep 20, 3:31 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:19 am, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article ,
William Mook wrote:

On Sep 5, 8:13 pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT), William Mook

wrote:
Am I immortal? I don't know. But there is reason to believe nearly
all of us alive today may be. If you track longevity over time, you
will see that it is a hyperbolic function that reaches infinity in
2200 AD.

So when has that type of extrapolation ever worked out in real life?

Moore curve.

That's not a law, it's an investment strategy.

Its a law that guides investments.

It's not a 'law'.

Its described as such in his 1965 paper.

It's a short term observation that even Moore says
is just about over.

50 years and 25 doublings of transistor count isn't short term.

If the semiconductor
industry quits working that way, a whole lot of people will find they're
at the edge of a cliff, so they spend a lot of money to make sure that
they don't.

Agreed. Yet, you are making a false choice. Just because you don't
understand the physics involved - doesn't mean the physics don't drive
it.

And it's physics that will end it.

So, its a valid extrapolation that has worked in the real world.
Other extrapolations based as soundly on research can also be made in
other areas. If as in the case of Moore investment dollars and
research effort are directed at the appropriate fundamentals,
tremendous changes can be wrought in our world - just as tremendous
changes in computing that we have seen over the past 50 years. We can
live in a world of peace and plenty, a world where everyone has
routine access to interplanetary space, a world where we live for a
very long time. These are all possible. All it takes is focus on the
appropriate ends based on a sound understanding of the fundamental
physics. This happened with Moores law, it can happen with similar
laws that focus on similar fundamentals appropriate to the core
science involved.

If you'd trouble yourself to actually read Gordon's initial 1965 paper
you would see that he made it pretty clear, doubling of transistor
count every two years was based on the physics of making integrated
circuits which arose from the physics of the process.

If you were capable of actually understanding what you read and cite
you wouldn't appear to be such a buffoon.

I'll leave that one to you Freddie, you're doing such a good job at
it.

Mookie Mewling Munched

But, if we can make use of all the lattice points of a 925 um thick
wafer - have another 1.7 million lattice points to play with. This is
20.7 doublings, and another 41.4 years of Moore's law. This takes us
to February 2053.

Moore disagrees.

No he doesn't He believes that planar systems will reach their
ultimate limit September 2011 just like I said. You are being
dishonest Freddie, that's the only way you can continue your little
game isn't it? haha. You erased the paragraph preceding where I said
we'll reach 1 nm by Sept 2011 - this is precisely what everyone is
talking about. We'll have to do something else if we want to
progress. That something else is operating on the volume of the
wafer, not just the surface.

I'll believe him before I believe you.

We don't disagree. You merely edited my reply to make it seem so.
You re being dishonest. Gordon sees the importance of doing something
different than has been done in the past 50 years - this is the point
of his talking about this. To urge investments in other directions -
like volume processing rather than planar processing.

Mookie Mewling Masticated

This has led some to suggest we are heading for a technological
singularity as human level computing is attained sometime within the
next 10 to 20 years.

'Futurists' and other loons.

Moravec is not a loon. You are. Notice the difference Freddie.

Moore made a sound observation in 1965 and extrapolated based on 7
years experience that he thought would last maybe until 1975. That
extrapolation has remained steady for 50 years - so its a real world
example of something that has worked despite the fact that we are
reaching its limits. Those limits were well known at the outset, and
we needed to invest in other programs as well as the one Moore
identified. We have not developed a diversity of processing methods -
we have perfected one. This is what Moore is talking about today.

Such are almost inevitably wrong.

Moore is an example of someone who focused on the fundamentals of
something he understood well, and made a sound extrapolation about
changes in the future. His success inspired generations of investors
and engineers to maintain the growth he suspected in 1965 was
possible. Around the 25 generations of success over the past 50 years
as arisen a vast new industry that has transformed the world. This is
a model that is right - and a model we would do well to emulate in the
future to create the sort of future we desire and deserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

So, physics is telling us something very important here. We have no
limits as we think of them. Not yet. Growth can continue, if we wish
it to continue.

Again, Moore (and most other people with a clue) disagree.

You do have difficulty understanding context. Moore is urging the
investment community and engineering community that has brought about
the 25 generations of doublings to focus their attention on other
things. He doesn't believe growth is impossible. He believes he may
have caused investment and engineering talent to be less diverse than
it needs to be to sustain growth he feels would be possible if it were
more diverse.

Even your
own cite says it.

No my cite says that the extrapolation made in 1965 based on data
going back to 1958 - might last until 1975. That extrapolation lasted
through 2008 - and spawned a new industry. Its a good example of how
progress is made in this world. And how that progress can exceed
everyone's expectations. Its a solid answer to Howard's question.
Its a good model for making progress in space and in medicine.

"Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility
of a technological singularity, including Jeff Hawkins, John Holland,
Daniel Dennett, Jaron Lanier, and Gordon Moore, whose eponymous
Moore's Law is often cited in support of the concept."

Yes, but if you ever spoke with Moore you would realize that Moore is
speaking about very specific reservations about his law. Its not as
black and white as the cite.

He wants people to understand the limitations - and more importantly -
what is required for growth. He wants us to understand that growth
will not come automatically as the result of any law. It comes from
efforts being properly directed and supported. He worries that his
law is being over-relied upon to direct growth.

Moore's law is a good example of an extrapolation that has worked in
the real world. Moore would say we need more of them. I am saying
that too.

You are mindlessly decrying the possibility of radical progress. This
is worse than mindlessly saying that Moores law will bring us
nirvana. Both are bad, since we need to really understand the details
of a thing in order to think usefully about it. You have demonstrated
an abject inability to think clearly about anything Freddie - and a
propensity toward dishonesty that will only hurt you in the end.

What do we want that growth to express?

Our fears or our hopes? Our anger or our love?

Our Mookie Mewling?

You are a good example of what is wrong with the world Freddie. You
make me despise you more with every post. That is something I do not
wish to feel, but you inspire that feeling in me more deeply with
every word you utter. I hate you Freddie, and I'm someone who would
rather not hate anyone.

On Sep 20, 2:48*am, William Mook wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:31 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -



William Mook wrote:
On Sep 18, 11:19 am, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article ,
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 5, 8:13 pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:52:15 -0700 (PDT), William Mook
wrote:
Am I immortal? *I don't know. *But there is reason to believe nearly
all of us alive today may be. *If you track longevity over time, you
will see that it is a hyperbolic function that reaches infinity in
2200 AD.
So when has that type of extrapolation ever worked out in real life?
Moore curve.
That's not a law, it's an investment strategy.
Its a law that guides investments.
It's not a 'law'.

Its described as such in his 1965 paper.

It's a short term observation that even Moore says
is just about over.

50 years and 25 doublings of transistor count isn't short term.

If the semiconductor
industry quits working that way, a whole lot of people will find they're
at the edge of a cliff, so they spend a lot of money to make sure that
they don't.
Agreed. *Yet, you are making a false choice. *Just because you don't
understand the physics involved - doesn't mean the physics don't drive
it.
And it's physics that will end it.

So, its a valid extrapolation that has worked in the real world.
Other extrapolations based as soundly on research can also be made in
other areas. *If as in the case of Moore investment dollars and
research effort are directed at the appropriate fundamentals,
tremendous changes can be wrought in our world - just as tremendous
changes in computing that we have seen over the past 50 years. *We can
live in a world of peace and plenty, a world where everyone has
routine access to interplanetary space, a world where we live for a
very long time. *These are all possible. *All it takes is focus on the
appropriate ends based on a sound understanding of the fundamental
physics. *This happened with Moores law, it can happen with similar
laws that focus on similar fundamentals appropriate to the core
science involved.

If you'd trouble yourself to actually read Gordon's initial 1965 paper
you would see that he made it pretty clear, doubling of transistor
count every two years was based on the physics of making integrated
circuits which arose from the physics of the process.
If you were capable of actually understanding what you read and cite
you wouldn't appear to be such a buffoon.

I'll leave that one to you Freddie, you're doing such a good job at
it.

Mookie Mewling Munched
But, if we can make use of all the lattice points of a 925 um thick
wafer - have another 1.7 million lattice points to play with. *This is
20.7 doublings, and another 41.4 years of Moore's law. *This takes us
to February 2053.
Moore disagrees.

No he doesn't * He believes that planar systems will reach their
ultimate limit September 2011 just like I said. *You are being
dishonest Freddie, that's the only way you can continue your little
game isn't it? *haha. *You erased the paragraph preceding where I said
we'll reach 1 nm by Sept 2011 - this is precisely what everyone is
talking about. *We'll have to do something else if we want to
progress. *That something else is operating on the volume of the
wafer, not just the surface.

I'll believe him before I believe you.

We don't disagree. *You merely edited my reply to make it seem so.
You re being dishonest. *Gordon sees the importance of doing something
different than has been done in the past 50 years - this is the point
of his talking about this. *To urge investments in other directions -
like volume processing rather than planar processing.

Mookie Mewling Masticated
This has led some to suggest we are heading for a technological
singularity as human level computing is attained sometime within the
next 10 to 20 years.
'Futurists' and other loons.

Moravec is not a loon. *You are. *Notice the difference Freddie.

Moore made a sound observation in 1965 and extrapolated based on 7
years experience that he thought would last maybe until 1975. *That
extrapolation has remained steady for 50 years - so its a real world
example of something that has worked despite the fact that we are
reaching its limits. *Those limits were well known at the outset, and
we needed to invest in other programs as well as the one Moore
identified. *We have not developed a diversity of processing methods -
we have perfected one. *This is what Moore is talking about today.

Such are almost inevitably wrong.

Moore is an example of someone who focused on the fundamentals of
something he understood well, and made a sound extrapolation about
changes in the future. *His success inspired generations of investors
and engineers to maintain the growth he suspected in 1965 was
possible. *Around the 25 generations of success over the past 50 years
as arisen a vast new industry that has transformed the world. *This is
a model that is right - and a model we would do well to emulate in the
future to create the sort of future we desire and deserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
So, physics is telling us something very important here. *We have no
limits as we think of them. *Not yet. *Growth can continue, if we wish
it to continue.
Again, Moore (and most other people with a clue) disagree.

You do have difficulty understanding context. *Moore is urging the
investment community and engineering community that has brought about
the 25 generations of doublings to focus their attention on other
things. *He doesn't believe growth is impossible. *He believes he may
have caused investment and engineering talent to be less diverse than
it needs to be to sustain growth he feels would be possible if it were
more diverse.

Even your
own cite says it.

No my cite says that the extrapolation made in 1965 based on data
going back to 1958 - might last until 1975. *That extrapolation lasted
through 2008 - and spawned a new industry. *Its a good example of how
progress is made in this world. *And how that progress can exceed
everyone's expectations. *Its a solid answer to Howard's question.
Its a good model for making progress in space and in medicine.

"Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility
of a technological singularity, including Jeff Hawkins, John Holland,
Daniel Dennett, Jaron Lanier, and Gordon Moore, whose eponymous
Moore's Law is often cited in support of the concept."

Yes, but if you ever spoke with Moore you would realize that Moore is
speaking about very specific reservations about his law. Its not as
black and white as the cite.

He wants people to understand the limitations - and more importantly -
what is required for growth. *He wants us to understand that growth
will not come automatically as the result of any law. *It comes from
efforts being properly directed and supported. *He worries that his
law is being over-relied upon to direct growth.

Moore's law is a good example of an extrapolation that has worked in
the real world. *Moore would say we need more of them. *I am saying
that too.

You are mindlessly decrying the possibility of radical progress. *This
is worse than mindlessly saying that Moores law will bring us
nirvana. *Both are bad, since we need to really understand the details
of a thing in order to think usefully about it. *You have demonstrated
an abject inability to think clearly about anything Freddie - and a
propensity toward dishonesty that will only hurt you in the end.

What do we want that growth to express?
Our fears or our hopes? *Our anger or our love?
Our Mookie Mewling?

You are a good example of what is wrong with the world Freddie. *You
make me despise you more with every post. *That is something I do not
wish to feel, but you inspire that feeling in me more deeply with
every word you utter. *I hate you Freddie, and I'm someone who would
rather not hate anyone.

Now do you believe me?

I've told you how many thousand times about these pretend-Atheists,
rusemasters and otherwise spooks and moles that have no positive/
constructive intentions whatsoever, other than to topic/author stalk
and bash for all they can muster, just like them good old mainstream
brown-nosed clowns and parrots they actually are.

At least Hitler would have loved to have had them on his team, but
that's about as good as it gets.

~ BG