SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
IEEE is running a special report on "50 Years of Moore's Law" that considers "the gift that keeps on giving" from different points of view. Chris Mack begins by arguing that nothing about Moore’s Law was inevitable. "Instead, it’s a testament to hard work, human ingenuity, and the incentives of a free market. Moore’s prediction may have started out as a fairly simple observation of a young industry. But over time it became an expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy—an ongoing act of creation by engineers and companies that saw the benefits of Moore’s Law and did their best to keep it going, or else risk falling behind the competition."
Andrew Huang argues that Moore's Law is slowing and will someday stop but the death of Moore's Law will spur innovation. "Someday in the foreseeable future, you will not be able to buy a better computer next year," writes Huang. "Under such a regime, you’ll probably want to purchase things that are more nicely made to begin with. The idea of an “heirloom laptop” may sound preposterous today, but someday we may perceive our computers as cherished and useful looms to hand down to our children, much as some people today regard wristwatches or antique furniture."
Vaclav Smil writes about "Moore's Curse" and argues that there is a dark side to the revolution in electronics for it has had the unintended effect of raising expectations for technical progress. "We are assured that rapid progress will soon bring self-driving electric cars, hypersonic airplanes, individually tailored cancer cures, and instant three-dimensional printing of hearts and kidneys. We are even told it will pave the world’s transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies," writes Smil. "But the doubling time for transistor density is no guide to technical progress generally. Modern life depends on many processes that improve rather slowly, not least the production of food and energy and the transportation of people and goods."
Finally Cyrus Mody writes that it seems clear that Moore’s Law is not a law of nature in any commonly accepted sense but what kind of thing is Moore’s Law? "Moore’s Law is a human construct. As with legislation, though, most of us have little and only indirect say in its construction," writes Mody. "Everyone, both the producers and consumers of microelectronics, takes steps needed to maintain Moore’s Law, yet everyone’s experience is that they are subject to it."
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:02AM
I call BS.
2015 - 1963 [wikipedia.org] = 52 years and the flying car is still not here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:10AM
You can have your flying car if you agree to pay the salary of a TSA agent who will grope you every time you go to your garage.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:19AM
Market it as a patriot massage and you have a red light for liftoff.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:03AM
Flying cars are being produced.
There isn't a technological barrier with the cars.
Its a problem with people and their expectations. When every casual fender bender brings death to the occupants and innocent people living below you soon realize that the car is not the most problematic piece of the puzzle. People are.
We are just not programmed to maneuver in three dimensions.
We still can't program machines to fly in close proximity, and only the best pilots can pull it off, and even then, not for very long.
So other than for licensed pilots, human piloted flying cars are useless.
Self driving cars in two dimensional space are barely arriving. We won't be ready for computer piloted cars for 75 years. earliest, and the death toll will be enormous. Even then, they probably won't make sense.
So while Moore's law didn't bring you flying cars, it did get us from Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquility within one life time.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.