Wow, your analysis would be perfect...if you had actually read the title on the chart!
The chart does not attempt to say how much computing power was available at a given time...only how much computing power you could buy for $1000. If you think that a Hollerith tabulator was available for $1000, I want some of whatever you're smoking! In reality, of course, the Hollerith tabulator cost (IIRC) some millions of dollars, making the actual speed of operation implied by the chart a few thousand times faster than your erroneous analyis.
In fact, Kurzweil explains all this in meticulous detail in the actual body of the text, which you evidently haven't bothered to read. Maybe the reason that, as you say, "the geeks didn't notice" is that the "geeks" read carefully, including that boring stuff up at the top in big print. This helps avoid jumping to ridiculous conclusions and making a fool out of oneself on Slashdot.
Patent everything? That's a great idea, if you can afford it. There are still two factors that you're ignoring:
Patents cost money. You want to patent the use of the middle mouse button? Go for it...except it will cost you over a thousand dollars to try, and your chances of actually landing the patent are close to nothing.
Lawsuits cost money. So what if you've patented the middle button? MS will just come out with a product whose features are accessed with the middle button, and what will you do?
Ignore them. In this case, why did you spend the money to get the patent?
Write them scary letters. Good luck.
Sue them. If the patent is found to be unenforceable (which it likely would be, in such a case) you're now out another ten thousand dollars or so.
In short, while the idea of all OSS advocates patenting their inventions is a nice one, it's doomed to failure because of economic concerns.
-- Jarom Lechner
Don't f**k the system. You might catch something
Re:Tho it's fair to disagree with what it DOES say
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 1
> But, but... the rate of increase of the rate of increase of the rate of increase is slowing!!
Negative jerk.
:)
Ok, so it's actually the 4th derivative that's negative, but this was too good to pass up.
Trust me -- if humanity in general ever had reason to think that its place at the top of the evolutionary food chain was in contest, we'd do what we had to do to ensure that is wasn't -- even if it means killing a potentially intelligent and sentiant being and (if necessesary, or maybe even if not) its creators. It's kind of a sad commentary, but we can't help it. It's hardcoded into our DNA by the experience of a thousand generations.
This is a common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. The idea that humans, as a race, should be on top of the food chain hasn't been coded into our DNA at all. What has been coded into our DNA is the idea that we, personally, should reproduce as much as possible, and then protect those copies of the genes which we passed down.
As a result of this, the most likely outcome is for us to allow machines to take over the world. Think about it. If the opportunity exists to use technology to make ourselves more smarter (and presumably therefore more successful in passing down our genes), those who do not want to use the technology will be left behind as a result of natural selection.
To sum up, we'll do what's best for the propagation of our genes. Not the genes of other humans.
Well, if this is true (and I haven't made up my mind yet; the lack of technical details was disturbing), what will we do with the space?
Sure, large web servers and other massive database-driven information repositories will be able to use it, but what about the home user? 15,000 hours of MP3s? Not likely.
I'm not going to make the mistake of saying it will be more than enough for anything; I'm sure in 10 years 2.3TB will be pitifully small, but I would like to know. In retrospect, it's easy to see how we can use more than 640KB RAM, but what retrospectively obvious things are we going to do to fill these drives?
Yes, I used to belong to the LDS church as well, and R-rated movies are unofficially proscribed. It's not official LDS doctrine that you shouldn't watch them, it's just one of the myriad things that Mormons will look down on you for.
Needless to say, any church which tries to keep its members from watching such things as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan has definite problems. Add to those the fact that evolution is strictly against church doctrine and the incredibly helpful information at http://www.irr.org/mit/, and you have a recipe for a Christian denomination which I would advise keeping as far as possible from.
But back on topic, it's amazing how far religions will go to show that they won't force people to believe the same as they do...they'll just force people to live as if they believed it.
Well, that's it...good thing this Utah State University department that I'm working for doesn't monitor employee's web access. Insulting Mormonism around here can get you fired really quickly, 1st Amendment issues not withstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
The chart does not attempt to say how much computing power was available at a given time...only how much computing power you could buy for $1000. If you think that a Hollerith tabulator was available for $1000, I want some of whatever you're smoking! In reality, of course, the Hollerith tabulator cost (IIRC) some millions of dollars, making the actual speed of operation implied by the chart a few thousand times faster than your erroneous analyis.
In fact, Kurzweil explains all this in meticulous detail in the actual body of the text, which you evidently haven't bothered to read. Maybe the reason that, as you say, "the geeks didn't notice" is that the "geeks" read carefully, including that boring stuff up at the top in big print. This helps avoid jumping to ridiculous conclusions and making a fool out of oneself on Slashdot.
- Patents cost money. You want to patent the use of the middle mouse button? Go for it...except it will cost you over a thousand dollars to try, and your chances of actually landing the patent are close to nothing.
- Lawsuits cost money. So what if you've patented the middle button? MS will just come out with a product whose features are accessed with the middle button, and what will you do?
- Ignore them. In this case, why did you spend the money to get the patent?
- Write them scary letters. Good luck.
- Sue them. If the patent is found to be unenforceable (which it likely would be, in such a case) you're now out another ten thousand dollars or so.
In short, while the idea of all OSS advocates patenting their inventions is a nice one, it's doomed to failure because of economic concerns.-- Jarom Lechner
Don't f**k the system. You might catch something
Negative jerk.
:)
Ok, so it's actually the 4th derivative that's negative, but this was too good to pass up.
This is a common misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. The idea that humans, as a race, should be on top of the food chain hasn't been coded into our DNA at all. What has been coded into our DNA is the idea that we, personally, should reproduce as much as possible, and then protect those copies of the genes which we passed down.
As a result of this, the most likely outcome is for us to allow machines to take over the world. Think about it. If the opportunity exists to use technology to make ourselves more smarter (and presumably therefore more successful in passing down our genes), those who do not want to use the technology will be left behind as a result of natural selection.
To sum up, we'll do what's best for the propagation of our genes. Not the genes of other humans.
Sure, large web servers and other massive database-driven information repositories will be able to use it, but what about the home user? 15,000 hours of MP3s? Not likely.
I'm not going to make the mistake of saying it will be more than enough for anything; I'm sure in 10 years 2.3TB will be pitifully small, but I would like to know. In retrospect, it's easy to see how we can use more than 640KB RAM, but what retrospectively obvious things are we going to do to fill these drives?
Speculations, anyone?
Needless to say, any church which tries to keep its members from watching such things as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan has definite problems. Add to those the fact that evolution is strictly against church doctrine and the incredibly helpful information at http://www.irr.org/mit/, and you have a recipe for a Christian denomination which I would advise keeping as far as possible from.
But back on topic, it's amazing how far religions will go to show that they won't force people to believe the same as they do...they'll just force people to live as if they believed it.
Well, that's it...good thing this Utah State University department that I'm working for doesn't monitor employee's web access. Insulting Mormonism around here can get you fired really quickly, 1st Amendment issues not withstanding.