The point is not that things aren't getting better for all of us overall with time. The point is that we're approaching the point where the rich will no longer need us, and that was not at all true with any of the innovations being made in the past. Do the poor make more use of cops/civil service? Of course, that's in full agreement with my point. The rich have long needed the poor to subsidize the existence of all sorts of services that really only work on a mass scale. But soon, we'll be transitioning to a world in which the rich no longer require the poor to subsidize those services, they'll be workable on a much smaller and individual scale.
I have to disagree. The rich will be those who legally control all the meaningful assets as the transition approaches, and their control of the armies of killer robots will be thoroughly established. Will some middle class engineers who designed in backdoors to some of the robots survive? Sure, but a tiny number of extra survivors won't really interfere with the overall goal.
Well Marx may yet be proven right: industrialization hasn't come far enough yet. My point is that the rich currently need the poor and to a greater extent the middle class. The world economy can't function (pretty much at all) without them. The rich rely on the continuing function of this economy to provide for their comfortable style of living. But one day in the next 40 years, that's going to change. There will come a point where robotics are sufficiently widespread that the rich will no longer need us to maintain their comfort. And at that point, I'd suggest that all of us (though no doubt more comfortable with our personal robots) will become a long term liability to the rich: consuming resources that could better be used to maintain more of their genetic descendants.
So you are no doubt right: we will all be better off, receiving the benefits of post-industrial society without having to work. And then the rich will kill us all, because if they don't need us to work, they don't need us at all.
You have to think about what the rich need 'money' to do exactly:
1) buy themselves a tiny (compared to the amount consumed by the poor) amount of consumer goods (no longer need the poor to make this possible if the robots can do it: they really just exploit the poor to produce economies of scale) 2) produce food (farms are nearly automated now, though we use a lot of ultra-poor labor in food collection, but the robots will be able to take care of this soon) 3) own a lot of land to produce their own food and live comfortably on (doesn't require the robots)
So the rich will soon be able to maintain their wealthy lifestyle without the poor, and at that point the poor just become a liability: a bunch of people who could rise up and kill them if they get too pissed off about their situation. At that point it really becomes significantly in the rich person's self interest to do away with the poor: it improves their (and their descendants) long term survival odds, with no cost to their comfortable style of living.
The rich need the poor to do only a few jobs: mass manufacture, police and emergency services, civil services. When they've got robots that eliminate the need for those at the bottom, I doubt they'll keep them around. If you are middle class or lower, you should think carefully about whether you're helping to build technology that will allow the upper class to do away with you.
15 years ago one incredibly brilliant marketer at intel hit the peak of their career when they came up with the pentium brand and the branding strategy. That strategy has served intel incredibly well for a decade and a half. Meanwhile, younger marketers have all been chafing at the bit, waiting their turn to prove themselves working with one of the world's top brands, yet stifled by the incredible success of their predecessors. This change indicates that the people most attached to the pentium branding success have finally moved on, and this new naming system with no effective branding technique will no doubt in the long run be viewed as this new group of marketer's 'great mistake' and the disastrous failure of their careers.
Kudos to Intel's outgoing marketing team, they had a marvelous run.
Yeah, the main point of interest is really process size... silicon devices are rapidly headed for a dead-end in terms of device size... conventional electronics cannot possibly operate any smaller than one atom, and 11 years from now we'll not be far removed from that (and frankly, it is difficult to imagine how even a 10 or 100 atom device would operate reliably). So I'd definitely expect progress to level off in the coming years as we approach that limit. Either we'll wind up switching to some completely non-conventional type of device (spintronics, qubits, etc, in which case I think you'd probably have to agree all bets are off) or we'll really be stuck. Interestingly enough, projecting as little as 30 years into the future: either we've got subatomic electronics (something of a misnomer there as electronics applies atomic level) or we've stopped being able to continue doubling density even at an every-3-years slower-than-current doubling rate.
Personally, I suspect that computer technology is headed for a wall.
On the other hand, if we get there, we'll have Trillion transistor chips. Hopefully 640 Terabytes of RAM is enough for anybody.
Well of course in fact 10% of the population does hold about 90% of the wealth in this society already. And I don't think that's a good thing. That's exactly why we have minimum wage laws: to prevent the evil rich from exploiting labor any more than they already do.
Putting money in your 401k means making an investment in something, which means you are helping to create jobs, just not local to your house, as with the maid example. Still comes to the same thing: when the least meaningful labor job is eliminated (as with weavers), some other more valuable job suddenly becomes more affordable, because there is more money around to afford it. That will always remain true so long as there are any labor intensive jobs, which in all likelyhood will be true until general purpose robots can replace any given type of labor.
The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not everyone, on average, would be better off if we went back to having fabrics made by hand.
If you answer no, then I think you have to also assume that likewise, everyone will be on average better off if we get rid of the need for cashiers.
As one example, suppose we do away with the cost of cashiers. Now I'm saved 10 minutes in line on average per day. I alone can afford one hour of personal maid service at cashier rates based on that. Multiply that by all the other people no longer in line, and you now have a huge demand for personal maid service. And now all the cashiers have jobs as maids.
Until all of the people with jobs that pay 10x or better minimum wage have a personal maid, I can assure you that every increase in efficiency resulting in the loss of low end minimum wage jobs will just make room for more valuable low end minimum wage jobs.
When robots can do mechanical labor... then we'll have a real problem. Then the rich will no longer need the poor, and since robots are much less likely to rise up in revolt at their poor treatment (in spite of science fiction claims otherwise) the rich will simply dispose of the poor and replace them with robots.
Much like the 3,000,000 MTBF figures offered on some hard drives, these numbers are figured out by running a large number of test devices in parallel for one or more years, finding out how many fail, and using statistics to figure out what the average failure time is therefore going to be. And before anyone asks, yes, the statistics also account for accelerating wearout over time.
Wow, and your trends only have to hold true for another 11 years for the prediction to come true. I guess in an industry with as little innovation as computer technology, that just might happen!
In all seriousness, the nand people don't have a good plan reaching out that far. In particular, by that point to maintain 100% avg capacity improvement every 2 years, let's call that 64x capacity improvement (I know, that would actually reach into the 12th year, but the graphs you claim are using improvement rates even faster than that: 160% per 2 years). That's an 8x improvement in process, and this memory was built in their new 50 nm process:
That puts this new hypothetical future memory on their 6.25 nm process (or with your less generous demands, a 2.7 nm process). That's getting into the range of significantly less than 1000 atoms per device (evidence for atoms / device claim: http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/SiNW. html). To think there won't be any significant changes or difficulties in reaching that goal is optimistic.
Meanwhile, all of this assumes that the hard disk people do nothing surprising in 11 years.
On the other hand, a watch manufacturer is stupid to be unclear in their feature advertising: if the product fails under conditions the user expects it not to, you've surely lost a customer forever, and the replacement watch is not going to be built by you.
Re:Bill still has over a week to go! Be fair!
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
In fairness to Bill, 3 years ago I was receiving about 700 spam / day. Last year I received 20 spams. Total. I'd say he achieved his goal, and I thank him profusely for gmail!
I'm sure if this becomes reasonably priced it will not be long before we develop algorithms for 3d such as resolving the shading for a large set of possible lighting conditions and then selecting the lighting condition of interest. Anything that can solve an enormously parallel math problem quickly will fast find widespread use in video applications.
The primary consumers of cryptographic security systems are financial systems. When quantum computers are sufficiently advanced to threaten their security, they will have to invest in physically secure communications systems. Which are fortunately already reasonably inexpensive, and will only become more so with time. On the other side of things, you will no longer be able to keep secrets from the police cryptographically, so that will be a bummer.
I have to thank Bill Gates, since his intervention 2? years back I can gratefully say that my spam rate has dropped to 1/1000th of its previous level. I'm not sure what he did, but whatever it was, it worked great!
My whole point with the post was that when you want to pick your start time for 'a century' is arbitrary.;-) However, I did in fact mean xx01, I was typing too fast.
There are many many top tier game titles only on the PC/Win platform. If you want to play one of those, particularly in its public interest time frame, you have to run a Windows OS.
They can take cells from a green pig, transplant them into pretty much anything else, and then track growth / spread / etc from those cells just by looking for the green marker. That seems to be the main benefit to further science.
Slashdot Mirror
organ cloneing: cloned organs will be more compatible anyway. That's clearly safely inside a 40 year time frame.
The point is not that things aren't getting better for all of us overall with time. The point is that we're approaching the point where the rich will no longer need us, and that was not at all true with any of the innovations being made in the past. Do the poor make more use of cops/civil service? Of course, that's in full agreement with my point. The rich have long needed the poor to subsidize the existence of all sorts of services that really only work on a mass scale. But soon, we'll be transitioning to a world in which the rich no longer require the poor to subsidize those services, they'll be workable on a much smaller and individual scale.
I have to disagree. The rich will be those who legally control all the meaningful assets as the transition approaches, and their control of the armies of killer robots will be thoroughly established. Will some middle class engineers who designed in backdoors to some of the robots survive? Sure, but a tiny number of extra survivors won't really interfere with the overall goal.
Well Marx may yet be proven right: industrialization hasn't come far enough yet. My point is that the rich currently need the poor and to a greater extent the middle class. The world economy can't function (pretty much at all) without them. The rich rely on the continuing function of this economy to provide for their comfortable style of living. But one day in the next 40 years, that's going to change. There will come a point where robotics are sufficiently widespread that the rich will no longer need us to maintain their comfort. And at that point, I'd suggest that all of us (though no doubt more comfortable with our personal robots) will become a long term liability to the rich: consuming resources that could better be used to maintain more of their genetic descendants.
So you are no doubt right: we will all be better off, receiving the benefits of post-industrial society without having to work. And then the rich will kill us all, because if they don't need us to work, they don't need us at all.
You have to think about what the rich need 'money' to do exactly:
1) buy themselves a tiny (compared to the amount consumed by the poor) amount of consumer goods (no longer need the poor to make this possible if the robots can do it: they really just exploit the poor to produce economies of scale)
2) produce food (farms are nearly automated now, though we use a lot of ultra-poor labor in food collection, but the robots will be able to take care of this soon)
3) own a lot of land to produce their own food and live comfortably on (doesn't require the robots)
So the rich will soon be able to maintain their wealthy lifestyle without the poor, and at that point the poor just become a liability: a bunch of people who could rise up and kill them if they get too pissed off about their situation. At that point it really becomes significantly in the rich person's self interest to do away with the poor: it improves their (and their descendants) long term survival odds, with no cost to their comfortable style of living.
The rich need the poor to do only a few jobs: mass manufacture, police and emergency services, civil services. When they've got robots that eliminate the need for those at the bottom, I doubt they'll keep them around. If you are middle class or lower, you should think carefully about whether you're helping to build technology that will allow the upper class to do away with you.
15 years ago one incredibly brilliant marketer at intel hit the peak of their career when they came up with the pentium brand and the branding strategy. That strategy has served intel incredibly well for a decade and a half. Meanwhile, younger marketers have all been chafing at the bit, waiting their turn to prove themselves working with one of the world's top brands, yet stifled by the incredible success of their predecessors. This change indicates that the people most attached to the pentium branding success have finally moved on, and this new naming system with no effective branding technique will no doubt in the long run be viewed as this new group of marketer's 'great mistake' and the disastrous failure of their careers.
Kudos to Intel's outgoing marketing team, they had a marvelous run.
Yeah, the main point of interest is really process size ... silicon devices are rapidly headed for a dead-end in terms of device size ... conventional electronics cannot possibly operate any smaller than one atom, and 11 years from now we'll not be far removed from that (and frankly, it is difficult to imagine how even a 10 or 100 atom device would operate reliably). So I'd definitely expect progress to level off in the coming years as we approach that limit. Either we'll wind up switching to some completely non-conventional type of device (spintronics, qubits, etc, in which case I think you'd probably have to agree all bets are off) or we'll really be stuck. Interestingly enough, projecting as little as 30 years into the future: either we've got subatomic electronics (something of a misnomer there as electronics applies atomic level) or we've stopped being able to continue doubling density even at an every-3-years slower-than-current doubling rate.
Personally, I suspect that computer technology is headed for a wall.
On the other hand, if we get there, we'll have Trillion transistor chips. Hopefully 640 Terabytes of RAM is enough for anybody.
Well of course in fact 10% of the population does hold about 90% of the wealth in this society already. And I don't think that's a good thing. That's exactly why we have minimum wage laws: to prevent the evil rich from exploiting labor any more than they already do.
But this is in the UK where they have a nice surcharge on blank media to cover the performance rights of whoever you rip off by using a CD.
Putting money in your 401k means making an investment in something, which means you are helping to create jobs, just not local to your house, as with the maid example. Still comes to the same thing: when the least meaningful labor job is eliminated (as with weavers), some other more valuable job suddenly becomes more affordable, because there is more money around to afford it. That will always remain true so long as there are any labor intensive jobs, which in all likelyhood will be true until general purpose robots can replace any given type of labor.
The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not everyone, on average, would be better off if we went back to having fabrics made by hand.
... then we'll have a real problem. Then the rich will no longer need the poor, and since robots are much less likely to rise up in revolt at their poor treatment (in spite of science fiction claims otherwise) the rich will simply dispose of the poor and replace them with robots.
If you answer no, then I think you have to also assume that likewise, everyone will be on average better off if we get rid of the need for cashiers.
As one example, suppose we do away with the cost of cashiers. Now I'm saved 10 minutes in line on average per day. I alone can afford one hour of personal maid service at cashier rates based on that. Multiply that by all the other people no longer in line, and you now have a huge demand for personal maid service. And now all the cashiers have jobs as maids.
Until all of the people with jobs that pay 10x or better minimum wage have a personal maid, I can assure you that every increase in efficiency resulting in the loss of low end minimum wage jobs will just make room for more valuable low end minimum wage jobs.
When robots can do mechanical labor
Much like the 3,000,000 MTBF figures offered on some hard drives, these numbers are figured out by running a large number of test devices in parallel for one or more years, finding out how many fail, and using statistics to figure out what the average failure time is therefore going to be. And before anyone asks, yes, the statistics also account for accelerating wearout over time.
Wow, and your trends only have to hold true for another 11 years for the prediction to come true. I guess in an industry with as little innovation as computer technology, that just might happen!
U SNews/Flash/Flash_20050912_0000191464.asp
. html). To think there won't be any significant changes or difficulties in reaching that goal is optimistic.
In all seriousness, the nand people don't have a good plan reaching out that far. In particular, by that point to maintain 100% avg capacity improvement every 2 years, let's call that 64x capacity improvement (I know, that would actually reach into the 12th year, but the graphs you claim are using improvement rates even faster than that: 160% per 2 years). That's an 8x improvement in process, and this memory was built in their new 50 nm process:
http://www.samsung.com/us/Products/Semiconductor/
That puts this new hypothetical future memory on their 6.25 nm process (or with your less generous demands, a 2.7 nm process). That's getting into the range of significantly less than 1000 atoms per device (evidence for atoms / device claim: http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/SiNW
Meanwhile, all of this assumes that the hard disk people do nothing surprising in 11 years.
On the other hand, a watch manufacturer is stupid to be unclear in their feature advertising: if the product fails under conditions the user expects it not to, you've surely lost a customer forever, and the replacement watch is not going to be built by you.
In fairness to Bill, 3 years ago I was receiving about 700 spam / day. Last year I received 20 spams. Total. I'd say he achieved his goal, and I thank him profusely for gmail!
I'm sure if this becomes reasonably priced it will not be long before we develop algorithms for 3d such as resolving the shading for a large set of possible lighting conditions and then selecting the lighting condition of interest. Anything that can solve an enormously parallel math problem quickly will fast find widespread use in video applications.
The primary consumers of cryptographic security systems are financial systems. When quantum computers are sufficiently advanced to threaten their security, they will have to invest in physically secure communications systems. Which are fortunately already reasonably inexpensive, and will only become more so with time. On the other side of things, you will no longer be able to keep secrets from the police cryptographically, so that will be a bummer.
That's marvelous, a 50% improvement in uptime!
Not to mention design. Have you seen Dell's square boxes? So square! So boxy! Fantastic!
I have to thank Bill Gates, since his intervention 2? years back I can gratefully say that my spam rate has dropped to 1/1000th of its previous level. I'm not sure what he did, but whatever it was, it worked great!
My whole point with the post was that when you want to pick your start time for 'a century' is arbitrary. ;-) However, I did in fact mean xx01, I was typing too fast.
There are many many top tier game titles only on the PC/Win platform. If you want to play one of those, particularly in its public interest time frame, you have to run a Windows OS.
They can take cells from a green pig, transplant them into pretty much anything else, and then track growth / spread / etc from those cells just by looking for the green marker. That seems to be the main benefit to further science.
Two obvious reasons:
1) Windows runs some piece of software you want, yet the apple hardware design is IYO superior.
2) Sidegrading: run both operatings systems, and use one physical system for all your tasks, particularly including games.