X-Message-Number: 20854 From: Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:38:53 EST Subject: Re: Pace of progress --part1_bd.2d38a4c9.2b546fcd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > James swayze said: > Measured in million patents granted at year date. > 1st M > 2nd M 3rd M > 1802--------------//-------------109yr--------------//-------------> > 1911----24yr----1935----26yr-- > > 4th M 5th M 6th M > --1961---15yr---1976---15yr---1991--12yr--2003 > > Any speculation on when the 7 millionth patent will be granted... 10yr, > 9yr, 8yr, > 5yr? Patent number is not a good way to mesure progress as I see it: Yes, on or two centuries ago it was good. Now, bad practices have polluted it. For example every bit of DNA is now patented, because it could contain a gene producing something valuable for the market. When a new, faster sequencing machine is put on the market (basic quantitative progress) there is a surge of DNA patents in the folowing months. One machine produce so hundreds of thousands patents. One century ago, there would have been one or two patents for the machine itself and nothing more. We can't say progress goes 100 000 times faster now because putting a clover leaf in a DNA sequencer generate 100 000 patents. From: "michaelprice" <> >> I see nothing really new in the past 30 years... > >considering just physics :-) >inflationary cosmology >superstring/brane theory >cosmological constant >neutrino mass Inflation, superstrings are just theories without experimental proofs. The cosmological constant was introduced by Einstein more than 80 years ago. The neutrinos mass is a refinement of the standard model as would be the discovery of Higgs bosons, these fit well in quantitative progress. Not to put on the same footing as Yang-Mills' gauge theory in the 50's or Feynman's QED ten years before. >Have a look at the Kurzweil site for a Singularity progress report: >http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23451 >in particular note the rising calculations per second per dollar rate (sort >of super-Moore's Law) which approximates >10exp(-14 + 6 x ((3.4)exp(-19 + t/100))) > >based on 49 data points spanning a century. t is years ACE or AD. >Cheap superAIs within 30 years. Computing power is fast growing I agree. But artificial intelligence would ask for more: a far better understanding of brain working. Super computing will be more propably used for flashing ad or super 3D Windows crashing every some hours. Well, we are in the multi-media era of computing, we have to see full screen streaming video, relief TV and some other gadgets. Next will come virtual reality, 40 years from now we can have it on large flat screen, a tremendous quantitative progress... From: Stephen Ritger <> >Just as there were many things that people 40 years ago "thought" we'd >have now, there are many more things that hadn't even been dreamed of >that are commonplace now and benefit mankind. If you take it back a >century or two, the gap becomes even more apparent. Your claim that >there hasn't been any technological progress in the last 40 years is >absurd. Predicting the future is a woefully inexact science, yes, but >being optimistic is not being a "sheep". Don't be silly... I don't say there have not been any progress in the past 40 years, only that there has been far fewer significant, non purely quantitative progress than before, in similar time frames. We go forward by mere inertia, the fundamental engine is death or near so. A large part of progress is quantitative, for example going from CD to DVD. If you reduce progress to that, there is progress... The problem is with important, basic, progress, either based on fundamental physics or changing the social order. I recall when I was young, reading about flying wings or half mile long airships able to transport everything including oil all over the world. it was said that that would free any nation from the economical neccessity of a sea outlet and so would reduce the number of wars. That has not been done and Iraq invasion of Kuwait has been motivated by the neccessity to have access to such harbor facilities. Politicians, military and bean counters dislike very much anything able to shake the current order, they far preffer some wars. For state/organization that can't overcome that policy, there is one issue: Terrorism, so be ready to se more of that. It will be good news for strong states: It will be a justification for less civil liberties and more dictatorship management. Yvan Bozzonetti. --part1_bd.2d38a4c9.2b546fcd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20854