<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Moore&#8217;s law for software</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/27/moore-software/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/27/moore-software/</link>
	<description>My opinions only. I do not represent any organization in this publication.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 16:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Linksvayer</title>
		<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/27/moore-software/#comment-96296</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Linksvayer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:10:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/27/moore-software/#comment-96296</guid>
		<description>Neat, but one data point that looks extremely atypical to me.

According to Wikipedia Pollard's rho algorithm was invented in 1975 and Quadratic sieve in 1981, so all of the ~10 quadillion fold improvement occurred over six years. The 1977 vs 2007 hardware makes appreciating just how big that improvement was a bit more intuitive, but doesn't tell much of anything else.  More data points are needed.

Speaking of which my statement "but still exponential" above is stupid. Again, more data points needed to say anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neat, but one data point that looks extremely atypical to me.</p>
<p>According to Wikipedia Pollard&#8217;s rho algorithm was invented in 1975 and Quadratic sieve in 1981, so all of the ~10 quadillion fold improvement occurred over six years. The 1977 vs 2007 hardware makes appreciating just how big that improvement was a bit more intuitive, but doesn&#8217;t tell much of anything else.  More data points are needed.</p>
<p>Speaking of which my statement &#8220;but still exponential&#8221; above is stupid. Again, more data points needed to say anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Hibbert</title>
		<link>http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/27/moore-software/#comment-96295</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Hibbert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/27/moore-software/#comment-96295</guid>
		<description>Eliezer Yudkowsky just asked a similar question on SL4 and extro-chat, and got a good answer with a quantifiable answer:

http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-August/037450.html

which points to this:
http://dwave.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/algorithms-vs-hardware-the-throwdown/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eliezer Yudkowsky just asked a similar question on SL4 and extro-chat, and got a good answer with a quantifiable answer:</p>
<p><a href="http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-August/037450.html" rel="nofollow">http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-August/037450.html</a></p>
<p>which points to this:<br />
<a href="http://dwave.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/algorithms-vs-hardware-the-throwdown/" rel="nofollow">http://dwave.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/algorithms-vs-hardware-the-throwdown/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
