It's been over 50 years since those heady days of the 1960s science and technology boom in the US. Electronic (vacuum) tubes were soon to be replaced by an interesting, solid-state device, known as an integrated circuit board. (What was it about the 1960s that made it so damned amazing anyway?)
Gordon Moore was one of three scientists and partners who came to be known as the founders of the company Intel. They developed their ideas, leading also to the development of solid-state memory devices (i.e RAM chips) and many other advances, which in turn, also begat the rapid advancement of not only computing machines, but also the manufacturing processes that were developed to create these amazing technological tools. April 19th, 2015 marks the 50th anniversary of a paper released by Gordon Moore which later became more widely know at Moore's Law.
Still not ringing any bells?
Don't worry, I didn't hear any bells either until I read this Economist article today regarding the 50th anniversary of Moore's Law. Moore realized in 1965 that the microchip with all the capabilities of it's solid-state integrated circuitry stated that the technology to produce microchip and to continually shrink the transistors would then allow for a doubling of transistors per unit of space in regular intervals (he settled on every 18 months or so), leading to an exponential increase in the ability of those circuit boards in addition to the decrease in cost to produce them. Largely his prediction held true, not for the 10 years as he foresaw, but nearly 50 years, longer than most ever agreed his "Law" would last.
Eventually the increasing limitations of physical space lead to what is now being seen - a reversal of the decreasing per unit cost to produce to achieve that same or declining rate per area of microchip. (This is where the Indycar light bulb went on for me).
In fall 2011, (maybe you were one of my tens of readers then) I wondered out-loud about the limitations and diminishing returns from increasing costs related to producing a leading-edge Indycar. Indycars (always in search of that next big idea to win the Indianapolis 500) were the working experiments in the laboratory of auto-racing which included design, manufacturing processes, and performance technology. From the early 1960s, steadily increased performance came with astounding regularity (and increasing budgets) until the early-1990s when it became no longer economically viable to build these amazing machines.
The cost to produce a winner was becoming highly prohibitive to all but those who could be counted only on a bad-shop-teacher's handful of fingers. Even the "unlimited" strata of F1 has hit a ceiling where costs and technology are outrunning those who would put resources to them.
So when considering how Indycars could be much better, don't forget that at some point, power, speed, efficiency, technology, AND economic input per unit ALL reach a point that simply cannot be overcome. We found it in Indycars much sooner than with microchips.
There was a time when the automobile was still new, out of the ordinary, looked upon with fascination and reverie. I grew up in the era when computers, for all their lack of personality, were also these amazing, cantankerous boxes that did increasingly amazing and streamlined tasks.
So in better understanding that these are the times in which we reside, the current Indycar is quite serviceable for me, adequately and fairly delivering a racing product of enjoyment for those who partake. Short of blowing up the whole paradigm and having a totally unlimited format (including budgets), this is our Indycar, post-Boomer world.
Four generations since the automobile saw rapid development, and two since the computer did the same, the luxurious showroom shine is well and truly off the 'Apple' and we'll likely see neither automobile nor computer with quite such fascination again.
I can't even imagine what the next big thing will be.
Please just don't let it be artificially intelligent android/robots.
They're simply WAY too creepy for me.
Gordon Moore was one of three scientists and partners who came to be known as the founders of the company Intel. They developed their ideas, leading also to the development of solid-state memory devices (i.e RAM chips) and many other advances, which in turn, also begat the rapid advancement of not only computing machines, but also the manufacturing processes that were developed to create these amazing technological tools. April 19th, 2015 marks the 50th anniversary of a paper released by Gordon Moore which later became more widely know at Moore's Law.
Still not ringing any bells?
Eventually the increasing limitations of physical space lead to what is now being seen - a reversal of the decreasing per unit cost to produce to achieve that same or declining rate per area of microchip. (This is where the Indycar light bulb went on for me).
In fall 2011, (maybe you were one of my tens of readers then) I wondered out-loud about the limitations and diminishing returns from increasing costs related to producing a leading-edge Indycar. Indycars (always in search of that next big idea to win the Indianapolis 500) were the working experiments in the laboratory of auto-racing which included design, manufacturing processes, and performance technology. From the early 1960s, steadily increased performance came with astounding regularity (and increasing budgets) until the early-1990s when it became no longer economically viable to build these amazing machines.
The cost to produce a winner was becoming highly prohibitive to all but those who could be counted only on a bad-shop-teacher's handful of fingers. Even the "unlimited" strata of F1 has hit a ceiling where costs and technology are outrunning those who would put resources to them.
There was a time when the automobile was still new, out of the ordinary, looked upon with fascination and reverie. I grew up in the era when computers, for all their lack of personality, were also these amazing, cantankerous boxes that did increasingly amazing and streamlined tasks.
So in better understanding that these are the times in which we reside, the current Indycar is quite serviceable for me, adequately and fairly delivering a racing product of enjoyment for those who partake. Short of blowing up the whole paradigm and having a totally unlimited format (including budgets), this is our Indycar, post-Boomer world.
Four generations since the automobile saw rapid development, and two since the computer did the same, the luxurious showroom shine is well and truly off the 'Apple' and we'll likely see neither automobile nor computer with quite such fascination again.
I can't even imagine what the next big thing will be.
Please just don't let it be artificially intelligent android/robots.
They're simply WAY too creepy for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment