[extropy-chat] Re: A slow down in Moore's law?

[Christian Weisgerber]

Acy James Stapp <astapp at fizzfactorgames.com> wrote:

> > http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/index.html
> And, to counter:
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23593

To counter what?  People are arguing at cross purposes.  The Tuomi
paper shows that "Moore's Law" is ill-defined and the usual attempts
to phrase it are counterfactual.  The thrust of the argument is not
that computers aren't getting faster.

> Kurzweil argues that the relevant metric for Moore's law is price per
> transistor cycle and provides much more convincing evidence (IMHO) that
> Tuomi.

Kurzweil comes up with yet another metric that he tries to shoehorn
into "Moore's Law".  All this does is to reinforce that people can't
agree on what "Moore's Law" actually is.  The term is meaningless.
I know people on this list like to reference it with religous fervor,
making them sound all the more naive.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy at mips.inka.de