Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Austin objected: > I'd like to put THAT in perspective. The purported "Moore's Law" is > NOT a > law at all. The phenomenon is known as "Moore's Law", regardless of whether you like the name or not. The fact that it may not be a law in either the legal, mathematical, or physical sense is moot. If I were to write "Moore's Prediction" or "Moore's Conjecture", then no one would have the faintest clue what I was talking about. Sometimes, being understood is more important than being absolutely correct. Besides, what does "absolutely correct" mean in any case? As for its validity, the observation that computing power (the number of transistors per unit chip area) doubles every 18 months has pretty much held true since 1970 (initially it was every year from 1964/1965). As such, it is an empirical law to the same extent that Fitt's Law is. It's called a "law" because it establishes a lawful relationship between observable variables and an outcome that is borne out by empirical verification. As far as I can see, your only valid point of contention might be that it is irrelevant to the issue of a digital back for the R8/R9 to be released in 16 months time, but interestingly enough, you didn't make *that* objection. M. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html