Moore's Law is exponential

Anything that is exponential could be mistaken as doubling every 18 months. However, since the 1990s, Moore's Law has proven to be exponential. Your government and/or secret societies have withheld this knowledge from you.

First, its an Idiom that tends to hold true, not a law.

Every-time we have come up with what we thought would be a limit, we advance in a way that allows for it.

It should continue for sometime, advances in graphene, Carbon nano tubes, and even simply HOW we program, will allow it to go on being true.

It is theoretically possible that we could reach a saturation point on speeds, where we have the fastest possible processing that any advancement would do no more to improve.

So at that point it would switch from a "speed" issue, to an efficiency one (kinda the same) smarter and clever ways of handling the data not so much raw processing power.


You see this in things like Hyper-threading, and implementation of multiple processing cores.

originally posted by: iosolomon
Anything that is exponential could be mistaken as doubling every 18 months. However, since the 1990s, Moore's Law has proven to be exponential. Your government and/or secret societies have withheld this knowledge from you.

No they haven't, lol. Everyone knows Moore's Law is exponential. Hell, Ray Kurzweil does speeches all the time about the exponential growth of technology, and he's one of many.

Here's just one of his more recent (I presume) speeches.

So quick update for you, but a doubling every 18 months, is an exponential behaviour by definition... It would seem in your case that secret societies stopped you getting a basic math education, while the rest of us are less hindered.

And besides, Moore's law isn't a physical law, it is a rule of thumb, a guide of prediction to how technology has been moving forward.

Example

y = a*2^(x/1.333) (this doubles what ever you have for the value of a, every 18 months (1.333 years))

is almost identical to the following

y = a*e^(x/1.923)

The precision on the values can be improved but it is basically the same! Bacteria has the same behaviour, it doubles every x amount of time until environmental factors dictate otherwise this is also said to be exponential.

a reply to: ErosA433

So quick update for you, but a doubling every 18 months, is an exponential behaviour by definition... It would seem in your case that secret societies stopped you getting a basic math education, while the rest of us are less hindered.

lol at the education part.

Yes, it seems that I have made a technical gaffe here. The state of technology that American secret societies and cults have is equivalent to that of the year 2032. That is what I meant by exponential. We should be nearly 20 years more advanced than we currently are.

Moore's Law is propaganda, and pretty damn good propaganda, since everyone eats it up.

How would you know this? (that "they" have tech 20 years superior to us plebs)

Moore now sits at a Lagrange point and laughs at the ten thousand things. Government's are straw dogs to the people.

originally posted by: iosolomon
a reply to: ErosA433
The state of technology that American secret societies and cults have is equivalent to that of the year 2032.

Moore's Law is propaganda, and pretty damn good propaganda, since everyone eats it up.

Important word here is... propaganda.

The technology that governments and cults have is not years ahead, this was a point of propaganda during the cold war, where all nations involved played a game of poker and wanted to make it appear like

"Oh you like this tech, well you havnt seen anything yet!"

Interesting example of this is the none-existant F-19, which was an open secret, which even ran to video games and air-fix models being available for the aircraft that no one had ever seen. Propaganda in this case to keep agents of the enemy confused and chasing ghosts.

I work currently developing a large scale dark matter detector. A lot of what we are doing is really frontier stuff, in terms of engineering. Iv seen a lot of really nice tech, and let me tell you 'mil' spec is often not that advanced. Because whats the point in putting something super advanced out there? if it is not tried tested and stable.

So, unless you can produce evidence, then sir, what you say is quite frankly garbage.

I like Moore's law, the head of intel says every 18 months the numbers of transistors will double on integrated circuits and behold intel double it every 18 months!!!

Its not a law or a prophesy, is the guideline the processor makers use for their R&D

originally posted by: 7918465230

originally posted by: iosolomon
Anything that is exponential could be mistaken as doubling every 18 months. However, since the 1990s, Moore's Law has proven to be exponential. Your government and/or secret societies have withheld this knowledge from you.

No they haven't, lol. Everyone knows Moore's Law is exponential. Hell, Ray Kurzweil does speeches all the time about the exponential growth of technology, and he's one of many.

Here's just one of his more recent (I presume) speeches.

I wonder if Ray (i'm a huge fan) can't help but get the word exponential in every single conversation he has.

I was totally elated when I found out he was becoming Google x's director of technology. His vision and now the means to achieve them will better man kind and change the course of human history.



Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: 7918465230

originally posted by: iosolomon
Anything that is exponential could be mistaken as doubling every 18 months. However, since the 1990s, Moore's Law has proven to be exponential. Your government and/or secret societies have withheld this knowledge from you.

No they haven't, lol. Everyone knows Moore's Law is exponential. Hell, Ray Kurzweil does speeches all the time about the exponential growth of technology, and he's one of many.

Here's just one of his more recent (I presume) speeches.

I wonder if Ray (i'm a huge fan) can't help but get the word exponential in every single conversation he has.

I was totally elated when I found out he was becoming Google x's director of technology. His vision and now the means to achieve them will better man kind and change the course of human history.

Korg.

Yeah, lol. I think he thinks nobody else knows what the word means, lol. And hell, as stupid as like 99% of people are, I don't really blame him. Also, he does a lot of speeches, but he has honed down basically the same one on the particular subject, so he essentially says the same thing in most of his speeches by now, at least, like I said, on the subject.

I also was very happy to hear he became Google's director of tech. Literally the perfect man for the job, and it just shows Google knows what the hell it's talking about. Now, all they need to do is hire Eric Drexler, and give him a sh!t load of funding, and we'll be in business.

originally posted by: ErosA433
Important word here is... propaganda.

Yes, you can say that again.

So, unless you can produce evidence, then sir, what you say is quite frankly garbage.

I cannot do that at this time. That would be like asking someone to produce evidence of God. This is a conspiracy theory, but it is also reality.

Of course, I am glad that other users have correctly pointed out that Moore's Law by definition is exponential.

All I can say is that Indigent has made a great point:

Its not a law or a prophesy, is the guideline the processor makers use for their R&D - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

In other words, all the corporations are in unison.

The only proof I can offer is that Big Tech already has the next evolution in the advancement of technology, but they do not release it, because they wouldn't make as much money.

I am sure the concept of built-in-obsolescence has been explored on here. Why would a capitalist release the iPhone 6 when they are still making millions off iPhone 5?

So, unless you can produce evidence, then sir, what you say is quite frankly garbage.

But you are right, what I say is garbage, just like every other conspiracy theory, so why even have this website? We should just accept whatever Big Brother tells us is true without question, and anyone who disagrees with what Big Brother says is garbage, so let us shut this website down because this is, by your logic, a website of garbage.

I cannot do that at this time. That would be like asking someone to produce evidence of God. This is a conspiracy theory, but it is also reality.

No, it is a conspiracy theory, if it was reality, it would be reality. The two are quite different. Once proven, a conspiracy looses its label, and gets referred to in the past tense.

In other words, all the corporations are in unison.

I really don't see how a trend in technology development means all companies are in with each other at that intimate a level, want my counter evidence? Look at the design and layout of AMD and Intel CPUs, they are totally different. Look at the lithography they use, they are also different. Look at how GPUs are designed between AMD and nVidia, they are also very different.

Why would a capitalist release the iPhone 6 when they are still making millions off iPhone 5?

Because of brand loyalty and stupidity of people who follow a branding cult. You know, not everyone buys into it, and the technology on an iphone has not really improved all that much over the last few versions... you know that right? Do you know what the whole apple vs samsung thing was about?

It was about the fact that Apple pay samsung to make their ARM cpus, but do so with the promise of not copying it... Apple only go after samsung because they know that samsung have a strong product which is a competitor. Why did people buy ipods at all? because technologically they where always inferior to other stuff on the market. For something as superficial as an iphone, they are on a release schedule, they dont hold them back, they just update them from time to time, because 95% of the population are stupid gullible idiots who want the latest thing. Im personally using a phone that is 4 years old, and still it is fine and does everything i want.

But you are right, what I say is garbage, just like every other conspiracy theory, so why even have this website? We should just accept whatever Big Brother tells us is true without question, and anyone who disagrees with what Big Brother says is garbage, so let us shut this website down because this is, by your logic, a website of garbage.

Very amusing. What happened there is that a few people destroyed your premiss for your conspiracy and you are trying to crawl back out of the hole you dug. Let me just explain some logic for you


"Hey Moores law apparently doubles every 18 months..."
OK yep with you

"But it has been proven to be exponential"
OK sure, that is what the first sentence says, you realize that right?

"Based on this massive coverup that Moores law is said to be something other than exponential, it proves there is a cover up and government have tech that is years ahead of us!"
Ok so given that you are saying that your first and second sentences are in fact different to each other, and using that to claim some conspiracy... you are on pretty shaky ground and puts doubt in my mind, as a professional Scientist to your actual grip on not only these simple meanings and logic, to your understanding of the world and reality. You might as well just say the following

"I think there is a conspiracy going on and that the governments around the world are holding back tech that is 20 years ahead of what the people have, I have no evidence for this except that i say so"

Discussing science and tech is extremely interesting, but first it helps if you want to talk about frontier tech, actually knowing what that really means. Its the same thing where people say "I cant wait for a quantum computer it will be so much faster!" Which again is absolutely not true... for you and me, people who use computers for doing barely any computational load, video games, facebook, youtube videos, searching websites for interesting things.... Quantum computers wont help squat... When people even suggest that video games are fairly hardcore in terms of the load they apply to computers, it makes me laugh because it shows that they dont even know that your 'overloaded' GPU is actually spending 60-70% of its time twiddling its thumbs and doing NOTHING... because the games industry doesn't know how to program.

I also love a good conspiracy theory, but the issue is that most conspiracy theories are all skin and bone, and typically are about as stable as a straw house.

originally posted by: ErosA433

No, it is a conspiracy theory, if it was reality, it would be reality. The two are quite different. Once proven, a conspiracy looses its label, and gets referred to in the past tense.

No, this is VERY poor logic you just used here. The reality is that your government and secret cults / societies have been LYING to you. Just because you label this "conspiracy theory" does NOT change the fact that it IS reality. Once a conspiracy theory is proven, it still HAS BEEN reality all along. Do you understand this?

I really don't see how a trend in technology development means all companies are in with each other

Then you know nothing about corruption. Let me tell you a thing or two. It would be illegal for Apple, Samsung, etc. to get together and coordinate what products they release to the public. Instead, they simply follow Moore's Law.

Because of brand loyalty and stupidity of people who follow a branding cult. You know, not everyone buys into it, and the technology on an iphone has not really improved all that much over the last few versions... you know that right?

I don't care to "follow" the lies that this society feeds its people. If what you say is correct that the technology hasn't really improved, then that proves my point. Why hasn't it improved? More than 18 months have gone by in the last few versions, and Moore's Law tells us we should have seen a doubling...

Very amusing. What happened there is that a few people destroyed your premiss for your conspiracy and you are trying to crawl back out of the hole you dug.

No one has destroyed my premise. I am not trying to crawl out of any hole. You are in the hole, and I am trying to pull you out. You refuse to see reality for what it is...

Let me just explain some logic for you

I don't have time for you to teach me that 1+1=3. When you want to teach me that 1+1=2, I will gladly listen, but when you do teach me 1+1=2, you won't need to explain any logic to me.

as a professional Scientist

I absolutely love arrogance! Do you think that just because you get an education you actually "know" something? In fact, it is the "educated" people in this country who are responsible for so much of the corruption, especially economists.

"I think there is a conspiracy going on and that the governments around the world are holding back tech that is 20 years ahead of what the people have, I have no evidence for this except that i say so"

No, I have evidence alright. The fingers on my hand. You hold 2 fingers, and you say that there are 3. Everyone else says that there are 3 fingers. Does that mean I am wrong to say that there are only 2? But you are the professional, and you show me how it is 3 by using the divide by zero fallacy. Everyone else says that is correct. I am unable to prove it to you that you cannot divide by zero because everyone else is saying it is correct. But let me assure you, 1+1 does in fact equal 2, and I will prove it to you by the end of this year.

I also love a good conspiracy theory, but the issue is that most conspiracy theories are all skin and bone, and typically are about as stable as a straw house.

Reality as YOU know it is all skin and bone, and you ARE living in straw house. God is going to blow that straw house over soon, but don't say I didn't try to warn you, because I did here.

a reply to: iosolomon

Yep, that does sound like arrogance, in this case I think it is warranted. I find it increadibly arrogant of someone who seemingly knows little about how technology and science works to be claiming a conspiracy and a coverup that is seemingly unrelated to the top in question.

Take things out of context as much as you like. Transistors on chip is purely related to the desired application. A cell phone (most) are based on the ARM architecture, we have nice quad cores these days, at GHz clock frequencies... pretty awesome right? how does it compare in power to a PC? Well to be brutally honest you cannot really compare but if you want to, then you will find that a bog standard ARM chip running at about 1GHz, gives you the same performance as a 100-200 MHz x86 (ish, its around that mark)... So why is this? Well the ARM architecture can be built to use a very low amount of power, the other point is that the ARM arch is put out there as a customizable standard which means a cell phone company can develop their own additions and chips, many companies make ARM chips. Basically only 2-3 companies i think make x86, the technology is more closed.

So what do you need to do on your phone?
Make calls, Send texts, Send data, maybe play a game or two, without using lots of power.

The more Transistors you use on the dye, the more power you use. BUT if you can make the transistors smaller, you can make them use less power. Great! but there are technological limits of lithography and typically THAT technology is what needs to be improved.

So A company wants to design a phone, great. They look at how they can make a phone do what a phone generally does and when they look at the CPU requirements they look at the operating system it will use and what applications typically use and require CPU wise and they develop around the minimum power usage while giving you ok performance.

Fact is that CPU requirements for day to day users have not really increased that much in a real way, I use a 4 year old Samsung Galaxy. I have latest android on it. Does it run smoothly? Yes Does my phone do what I want it to do day to day? Yes.

A phone is NOT something where you really find bleeding edge technology. It is marketed as a bleeding edge package, ie a phone company can run a profit with that device, but the tech itself is basically the most efficient version of the minimum required components.


Computers are different, they have a wider range of uses, CPU technology reached the clock frequency limit at around 3.5GHz for a stable off the shelf CPU. You can push higher but the extra performance is not linear. This is limited by transistors requiring a minimum drift time, this is dependant upon the voltage you can apply and the type of doping in the semi-conductor. Unless moved away from Silicon technology this limit is with us and it is physically very hard to overcome. Miniaturizing goes some of the way, but doesn't fix everything. The faster you cycle a transistor the hotter it gets, so you reach a point that it doesn't really matter how you negate that, you hit a point that is the limit. Like I said, for Silicon we got there, done.

So What do we do?

Well you are no doubt aware that we are moving to multi-core chips, in fact it has been that way for a long time. The tricky part about multi-core processors is that they give you extra performance ONLY if the program you run is designed in a parallel manner. That is, parts that can be executed on more than one core without creating a race condition or negatively impacting elsewhere, will gain any performance at all. Muli-cores give you a great tool to reduce overhead and allow the CPU to apply power for a task without having to stop and wait for other threads.

So this means we can double up cores on a chip at will! So why don't we do it?

Same reason why the PS3's power pc architecture Cell chip had 1 core turned off out of 6... YIELD.

Construction is not something that is 100% repeatable, and growing / etching and doping silicon is a physical chemical process that we have gotten great at doing, but it is not perfect.

If you produce a CPU with 8 cores, your yield is lowered drastically due to compounded failures in the manufacturing process. So? So as a high street consumer, they will rather produce a 2 or 4 core chip because the yield is better. If you compare Intel and AMD chips, this is why the phenom when introduced was cheaper. Performance/price point was matched to intel for market reasons, but the cost of production was aided by the design of the chip allowing AMD to manufacture quad cores, and deactivate any that were bad. Intel i don't believe designed theirs in this way. So You have a triple core AMD? Its actually a quad core with one bad core.

Anyway, what about these 50 core CPUs that are out there! can the public have those? Well, firstly they are not commercial products, they are enterprise products. To produce them, intel/amd/whoever have to typically do a single custom run and keep waisting silicon until they get 50 cores that work. What Moore's law applies to is 'affordable' CPUs, and not enterprise gear.

50 cores! must be wonderful right! I wonder how well Battlefield 4, Vice City 5 or COD would run on that! wow... well truth is it would run just as well as your CPU in your desktop. about 46 of the cores will be sat doing nothing while 4 do the task.

Oh but it will allow you to make everything photorealistic... well wrong again, because a GPU is really the driving force there NOT the cpu and that is a similar kettle of fish.


So do governments have access to ultra fast CPUs with lots of cores... yes they do, but they have the money to pay for them. If you was a millionaire and wanted your very own computing cluster with 1000's of available cores, you can have one and no one will really care. Pay the money and you can have it, being able to use it is another thing.

So what is all this CPU power doing? Well if you are Mr Joe public, you want entertainment typically. those not doing entertainment things might be creating content, movies music etc... You don't need 50 cores for that, an expensive computer semi-enterprise kit will do that for you perfectly fine. software and hardware is in the public domain to do that.

So what is the real use of all this CPU power?

Scientists will use them to perform complex computations such as n-body simulations, protein unfolding, finite element analysis, physical simulations, data analysis, analytical mathematics, predictive n-body simulations such as weather mapping to name a few.

These are some areas where CPU brawn and parallel computing comes into its own. In terms of the technology being available to the public, well it is available, but just how much more power do you really need to play a few games and surf face book... not sure if you knew but overhead of games is only bad because of people being very lazy in the way that they program. You only need a faster computer every few years because of the art of programming dying out.

So those simulations performed must be super secret right? Well not really, in particle physics anyway the main packages are free. Want do do some data analysis using the same tools the people working on the LHC use? Want to do physics simulations... go ahead

root.cern.ch...
geant4.cern.ch...
Enjoy

The point really I was trying to get at is the following

Thanks for the prophecy, but your preaching didn't win this one.

There are things going on in the background that are unseen... well yes that is generally true is it? The issue with most people is that they do not really see the big picture. In an attempt to make sense of things we invent things to make ourselves feel comfortable or in control. Technology is one place were we want to believe in magic. Like when you hear people say "Why don't THEY just make photocells that are 100% efficient" and it is a moot question because as soon as you understand just a small amount of physics, you realize it is not a case of 'JUST' doing it. it is extraordinarily tricky.

So which straw house gets blown down? and who does the blowing? and which government? Last time i checked there are are as many governments as there are counties there bouts... let me guess? New world order and all that? World War III? Yeah probably, we like to kill one another over money land and ink on paper written thousands of years ago... you are preaching to someone who is very cynical, not all that much surprises me.

whats that line?

You're a ghost driving a meat coated skeleton made from stardust

originally posted by: 7918465230
I also was very happy to hear he became Google's director of tech. Literally the perfect man for the job, and it just shows Google knows what the hell it's talking about. Now, all they need to do is hire Eric Drexler, and give him a sh!t load of funding, and we'll be in business.

WoooW Eric Drexler in the mix would make a dream team... we would be take our nano medic pills in next to no time at all

Peace,

Korg.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: 7918465230
I also was very happy to hear he became Google's director of tech. Literally the perfect man for the job, and it just shows Google knows what the hell it's talking about. Now, all they need to do is hire Eric Drexler, and give him a sh!t load of funding, and we'll be in business.

WoooW Eric Drexler in the mix would make a dream team... we would be take our nano medic pills in next to no time at all

Peace,

Korg.

Not only that but nano-fabricators that can make anything, that is atomically precise (meaning every atom is where the designers wanted it). Kinda like the Star Trek food replicator, only not just with food. Anything. And the materials that you could make when you can place every atom in it's exact spot would be mind blowing. I saw in a paper (that Eric Drexler, and a multitude of other helped write) called productive nanosystems, and in it, they predicted within 15 years we would have the beginning stages of one (and even the beginning stages were unreal), and that paper was published 7 years ago in 2007.

So basically, sh!ts about to get real, fairly soon.

originally posted by: 7918465230

So basically, sh!ts about to get real, fairly soon.

Only if you program the replicator with the SH!T program first lol

If anyone thinks that people buy consumer electronics based on the specifics on the underlying technology involved, then they obviously know very little about consumer electronics or engineering design in general. It's not about how "advanced" the underlying technology is. Nobody cares about whether one product is on a smaller manufacturing node than another. It's about the functionality (including ease-of-use) that the overall product achieves (using that technology) and the overall packaging of the product. By packaging I don't mean the box it comes in. I mean the justifications behind why each piece of technology was chosen was chosen for that product, the build quality, the look, and overall form-factor of that product. What also matters is the way the product is advertised and sold.

The reason I bring this up, is I see a meme where people bash Apple and its users. The reality is that Apple, while they don't have inherently have access to newer technology than their competitors, often blow away the competition in terms of actual design and packaging. That's why they're so popular. It's not their fault their competitors often are often not creative enough to come up with similar designs with the same technology.

Why would a capitalist release the iPhone 6 when they are still making millions off iPhone 5?

Either the technology to make an advancement over the iPhone 5 doesn't exist yet, or the overall product to make a successor to the iPhone 5 is still in-design. Also part of capitalism is something called "competition". Look it up sometime.

and the technology on an iphone has not really improved all that much over the last few versions...

Pretty sure it has. Also first generation smartphones were not really an underlying technology breakthrough, they were simply a radical new "packaging" design that was enabled by the steady progression of many underlying technologies, like touchscreens and microprocessors. Compare the Galaxy S1 to high-end phones that preceded it - I'm betting the processor, RAM, (etc) were not significantly inferior to the SGS1.

If you compare Intel and AMD chips, this is why the phenom when introduced was cheaper. Performance/price point was matched to intel for market reasons, but the cost of production was aided by the design of the chip allowing AMD to manufacture quad cores

Good post.

However to add, Phenom I was by many accounts significantly inferior to the Core 2 Quad. It was also possibly harder to produce since it was a native quad-core. Intel simply stuck two dual-cores together on a single die to make a quad.