<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<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>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:54:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<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&#039;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&#039;t tell much of anything else.  More data points are needed.

Speaking of which my statement &quot;but still exponential&quot; 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>
