Comments on: Moore’s Law, as amended http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/ by Jeff Jarvis Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:04:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard » Blog Archive » Moore’s Law, once more with feeling http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-360649 Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard » Blog Archive » Moore’s Law, once more with feeling Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:36:06 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-360649 [...] Jeff Jarvis reminds us that Moore’s Law is not: “Chips double in speed every 18 months.” Gordon Moore first predicted that the power of microprocessors (as measured by the number of transistors you could cram into a particular space on a chip) would double once every year; later he revised it to once every two years. Somehow — most likely, thanks to careless popular journalism — in the popular imagination this has become set in stone as an every-18-month prediction about chip speed. [...] [...] Jeff Jarvis reminds us that Moore’s Law is not: “Chips double in speed every 18 months.” Gordon Moore first predicted that the power of microprocessors (as measured by the number of transistors you could cram into a particular space on a chip) would double once every year; later he revised it to once every two years. Somehow — most likely, thanks to careless popular journalism — in the popular imagination this has become set in stone as an every-18-month prediction about chip speed. [...]

]]> By: H.A. Page http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-360042 H.A. Page Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:32:14 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-360042 Truth and Whack-a-Mole? Probably so. I'd like to think that it is fungible. It isn't static. It is a malleable thing. Perhaps that is why a wikipedia, with a back-channel trackability, can keep up with the fluid motion of truth? Truth and Whack-a-Mole? Probably so. I’d like to think that it is fungible. It isn’t static. It is a malleable thing. Perhaps that is why a wikipedia, with a back-channel trackability, can keep up with the fluid motion of truth?

]]> By: Make Them Accountable / Media http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-359816 Make Them Accountable / Media Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:41:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-359816 [...] Moore’s Law, as amended (by Jeff Jarvis) Gordon Moore … said that his first version of his law had transistors doubling on chips in a year but the public version made that two years. He noted that it’s often said his law calls for doubling every 18 months but that’s not true; he didn’t say that… Search at Google for “Gordon Moore” and “18 months” and you’ll find lots of erroneous statements of the law… How does Moore assure there is a definitive statement of his law? How do we know it comes from him? Once it’s acknowledged as correct, how do we notify those who got it wrong so the can correct it and start spreading the right meme? Truth is a game of wack-a-mole. There is a serious problem with online content, whether they be mistakes or lies.  Unless we develop a strategy to overwhelm the right-wing lies on search engines, they will live on and on and on.  To see what I mean, do a Google search on [“Al Gore” lies] without the brackets.  Right-wing lies about Al Gore being a liar dominate the search. [...] [...] Moore’s Law, as amended (by Jeff Jarvis) Gordon Moore … said that his first version of his law had transistors doubling on chips in a year but the public version made that two years. He noted that it’s often said his law calls for doubling every 18 months but that’s not true; he didn’t say that… Search at Google for “Gordon Moore” and “18 months” and you’ll find lots of erroneous statements of the law… How does Moore assure there is a definitive statement of his law? How do we know it comes from him? Once it’s acknowledged as correct, how do we notify those who got it wrong so the can correct it and start spreading the right meme? Truth is a game of wack-a-mole. There is a serious problem with online content, whether they be mistakes or lies.  Unless we develop a strategy to overwhelm the right-wing lies on search engines, they will live on and on and on.  To see what I mean, do a Google search on [“Al Gore” lies] without the brackets.  Right-wing lies about Al Gore being a liar dominate the search. [...]

]]> By: Jim Russell http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-359797 Jim Russell Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:38:32 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-359797 Did you see yesterday's "Frazz" strip? It fits this discussion perfectly. http://www.comics.com/comics/frazz/archive/frazz-20070912.html Did you see yesterday’s “Frazz” strip? It fits this discussion perfectly.

http://www.comics.com/comics/frazz/archive/frazz-20070912.html

]]> By: Chris Edwards http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-359773 Chris Edwards Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:03:34 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/09/12/moores-law-as-amended/#comment-359773 Somebody should probably go and tell Moore's company, Intel, what the period should be, because the company is the one that goes around telling everybody that it's 18 months: "There's even a law for predicting this. It's called Moore's Law, named after Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel. Moore predicted in 1965 that the number of transistors on a chip would double about every 18 months." - from Intel site at: http://www97.intel.com/discover/JourneyInside/TJI_TechSociety_lesson5/default.aspx Moore was introduced at an Intel Developers Forum keynote with some cooked-up story about 18 fish. He didn't complain then, either. The problem is Moore's Law doesn't actually describe chip density versus time: the original article by Moore talks about chip density versus chip-production process generations - they simply moved at the rate of one every four years in 1965 (giving a doubling every two). It then reduced to two years. Then went up to three; it's running at about three right now. There is no "definitive statement of his law" that involves time. But are you going to put that in a correction - the conventional quotation of the law is close enough for a lay audience. Are you seriously going to ask newspapers to explain the concept of process generations to those readers simply to be arse-grindingly accurate? Especially when the net result of a doubling roughly every 18 months is what they see? If people want to find out what Moore's Law (which really should be called the Moore Plot if you want accuracy) is about, the source material is available via the Internet. Maybe the NYT can link to his paper, but that is about as far as it need go in this case. It's a poor example of what online news sources should do with corrections. Somebody should probably go and tell Moore’s company, Intel, what the period should be, because the company is the one that goes around telling everybody that it’s 18 months:

“There’s even a law for predicting this. It’s called Moore’s Law, named after Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel. Moore predicted in 1965 that the number of transistors on a chip would double about every 18 months.” – from Intel site at: http://www97.intel.com/discover/JourneyInside/TJI_TechSociety_lesson5/default.aspx

Moore was introduced at an Intel Developers Forum keynote with some cooked-up story about 18 fish. He didn’t complain then, either.

The problem is Moore’s Law doesn’t actually describe chip density versus time: the original article by Moore talks about chip density versus chip-production process generations – they simply moved at the rate of one every four years in 1965 (giving a doubling every two). It then reduced to two years. Then went up to three; it’s running at about three right now. There is no “definitive statement of his law” that involves time. But are you going to put that in a correction – the conventional quotation of the law is close enough for a lay audience.

Are you seriously going to ask newspapers to explain the concept of process generations to those readers simply to be arse-grindingly accurate? Especially when the net result of a doubling roughly every 18 months is what they see?

If people want to find out what Moore’s Law (which really should be called the Moore Plot if you want accuracy) is about, the source material is available via the Internet. Maybe the NYT can link to his paper, but that is about as far as it need go in this case. It’s a poor example of what online news sources should do with corrections.

]]>