Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bafuture] Current state of the art

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Anderson
    Yea...and kudos...but If there s room at the bottom.... and aint nobody buying to maintain a market... then it s nothing more than nanotech for nada or oh!
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 20 12:00 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Yea...and kudos...but

      If there's room at the bottom....

      and aint' nobody buying to maintain a market...

      then it's nothing more than nanotech for "nada" or oh! no-profits?

      Pretty soon...your local economy is devastasted and YOU'RE at the bottom!

      Technology has several environments it's responsible for. Like it or not. Biological is one. Economic is certainly the other.

      Or do you pour money into spin-doctors and artificial price supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting, and WorldCom's accounting techniques?
      So...for a while, no-on will notice?

      On the otherhand...if you can convince people to work for next to nothing ( especially you California High $$ types ) or are willing to suffer the consequences of globalization where Government interests and Corp Interest cannot co-exist. Then...Have yo' technology!! ..and more of it!
      ( q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:

      The Trap

      The Response

      http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html
      )

      Somwhere earlier there was a "joie-de-vivre" on these Salons regarding technology being able to continue despite adversity. " For higher silicon evolution!"

      You know like war? I think someone particularly mentioned that "side-track" to technological progress.

      I keep remembering a cartoon in the Village Voice by Oliphant, during the week the Neutron Bomb was announced, as a device that did not destroy buildings. Of course, I don't have to tell you and the NYTimes article never said...er um but kills a whoppin' lot of people with high-radiation levels over 3-7 days. It showed a bunch of accountants jumping for joy on their desks!


      This is what gets me most. The survival instinct when assuaged by technology for technology sake, opinions and modern day tech toys...gets overlooked and in the process...over-ridden.



      --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
      >
      >Whoops. Where is my brain? Maybe this is a sign that it's
      >time to go to bed. When I read these articles several
      >days ago, I was thinking that they'd put 90-nm technology
      >into production, and were going to increase the volume.
      >But I just looked at them again, and both articles clearly
      >say that the 90-nm technology won't go into
      >production until "next year". So I'm 4 months too soon.
      >So pbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpt!
      >
      >I also didn't remember the previous article right. It
      >was for 65-nm process technology, not 70-nm, although it
      >mentions 70-nm technology. Here's the previous article, if
      >they haven't taken it down:
      >
      >http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1938/020502infineonnanya/
      >
      >It says, "(UMC) announced a plan earlier this year to build
      >a 300-millimeter wafer plant in Singapore and to collaborate
      >[with AMD] on production technologies down to 65 nanometers."
      >
      >
      >--- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> For those of you interestest in "where are we right now"
      >> in the process of accelerating technological change:
      >>
      >> Last I posted, I said the current state of the art in
      >> the semiconductor industry was 130 nanometer feature size,
      >> and that there was serious work underway for development
      >> of 70-nanometer technology.
      >>
      >> Well, those numbers have both just crept another notch
      >> downward, on our march towards single molecules and atoms.
      >> Intel has just announced that it has 90 nanometer fabs
      >> in production. And they are now talking about developing
      >> 60 (or 50?) nanometer semiconductors. You heard it here
      >> first (probably)
      >>
      >> --
      >>
      >> Intel will increase the performance of its microprocessors
      >> next year, in part by spreading out its silicon atoms.
      >> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-949493.html
      >>
      >> Intel releases details on 90-nanometer process
      >> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2076/020813intel90nanometer/
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> __________________________________________________
      >> Do You Yahoo!?
      >> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
      >> http://www.hotjobs.com
      >>
      >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >>
      >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >> bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >__________________________________________________
      >Do You Yahoo!?
      >HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
      >http://www.hotjobs.com
      >
      >
      >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      _____________________________________________________________
      A free email account your friends will never forget!
      Get YOURNAME@... at http://www.emailaccount.com/

      _____________________________________________________________
      Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with email@... by Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag
    • wayne radinsky
      ... I don t see what you are getting at here. Semiconductor sales started increasing in April. We re already into the next boom cycle. It s pretty weak at this
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 21 1:26 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Joseph Anderson <bigwhiskey@...> wrote:
        > Yea...and kudos...but
        >
        > If there's room at the bottom....
        >
        > and aint' nobody buying to maintain a market...
        >
        > then it's nothing more than nanotech for "nada" or oh!
        > no-profits?

        I don't see what you are getting at here. Semiconductor
        sales started increasing in April. We're already into the
        next boom cycle. It's pretty weak at this point, but it
        will grow. There are buyers in the market, and as
        technology gets more powerful, there will be more products
        people want to buy.

        > Pretty soon...your local economy is devastasted and YOU'RE
        > at the bottom!

        I don't see what you are getting at here. There are many
        devastated local economies in the world. This does not
        affect the accelerating pace of technology development.

        > Technology has several environments it's responsible for.
        > Like it or not. Biological is one. Economic is certainly
        > the other.
        >
        > Or do you pour money into spin-doctors and artificial price
        > supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting, and WorldCom's
        > accounting techniques? So...for a while, no-on will notice?

        Again, the collapse of Enron, Anderson, Global Crossing,
        WorldCom, etc, does not slow the pace of technology. This
        may seem counterintuitive, but it has no effect.

        > On the otherhand...if you can convince people to work for
        > next to nothing ( especially you California High $$ types )
        > or are willing to suffer the consequences of globalization
        > where Government interests and Corp Interest cannot
        > co-exist. Then...Have yo' technology!! ..and more of it! (
        > q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:
        >
        > The Trap
        >
        > The Response
        >
        > http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html

        Interesting article. Thanks. I'm not sure how it ties in
        with my post. The theme of this article is "free trade".
        What's the connection? That semiconductors are manufactured
        by "free trade"? That technological advancement has not
        brought economic equality between nations?

        > Somwhere earlier there was a "joie-de-vivre" on these
        > Salons regarding technology being able to continue despite
        > adversity. " For higher silicon evolution!"
        >
        > You know like war? I think someone particularly mentioned
        > that "side-track" to technological progress.

        That was me, yup. But I don't know where you got the " For
        higher silicon evolution!" part. I'm only saying that, as a
        matter of fact, economic recession does not slow down the
        advancement of technology. If you don't believe me, draw a
        graph. Plot out transistor size, or CPU clock speed, or
        whatever, and see whether it goes down during the current
        economic recession.

        You'll see, it doesn't, it maintains its exponential
        trajectory. This is not a "joie-de-vivre", this is an
        empirical fact.

        > I keep remembering a cartoon in the Village Voice by
        > Oliphant, during the week the Neutron Bomb was announced,
        > as a device that did not destroy buildings. Of course, I
        > don't have to tell you and the NYTimes article never
        > said...er um but kills a whoppin' lot of people with
        > high-radiation levels over 3-7 days. It showed a bunch of
        > accountants jumping for joy on their desks!
        >
        >
        > This is what gets me most. The survival instinct when
        > assuaged by technology for technology sake, opinions and
        > modern day tech toys...gets overlooked and in the
        > process...over-ridden.

        Quite possibly.

        There seem to be 3 main lines of thought on this sort of
        thing.

        1) The optimistic outlook -- technological advancement
        will, by itself, make everything better. John Smart is
        definitely in this category. He believes that, as the
        technological singularity approaches, that we will all be
        amazed by the speed at which the remaining human problems
        are solved. He has some of the most clever and unusual
        arguments of any of the thinkers I know of, such as the
        idea that as a complex adaptive system increases in
        complexity, it also increases the concentration on
        positive-sum interactions, and decreases in violence and
        other zero-sum or negative-sum interactions. Ray Kurzweil
        sort of goes in this category -- he likes to talk about how
        human lifespan is being extended exponentially and so
        fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges the downside -- he has a
        "Dangerous Futures" section on his website and so on.
        So he is not 100% in this category, but I think that is
        the overall theme of his thinking.

        2) The "we can control the outcome" outlook -- I would put
        Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, Christine Peterson,
        etc), because Foresight's basic premise is that if you can
        influence the "initial conditions" of technological
        development early in the process, then you can influence
        where the whole trajectory goes and thereby head the system
        off in the direction of a positive outcome. I would put
        Eliezer Yudkowsky in this category as well, although he
        seems to take the view that he personally is going to
        invent strong AI, preprogram it with Asimov laws, and save
        the world (more or less). Of course, you can probably guess,
        by the wording I use, that I'm very skeptical his approach
        will work. :)

        3) The "pessimistic" outlook. This is the "technology will
        make humanity extinct!" point of view expressed by people
        like Mark Gubrud. And possibly Bill Joy, although I was
        never sure whether Bill Joy really believes this point of
        view or whether he was just trying to provoke widespread
        discussion on the issue. (Which he certainly did in any
        case). Gubrud takes the moralistic position -- that humans
        must stop technology because technology will make humanity
        extinct, and that's morally wrong.

        For my part, I think I lean towards the pessimistic
        viewpoint simply because I was once a big believer in the
        "techno-utopian" viewpoint -- the idea that we'll invent
        technology that will solve humanity's problems. My time at
        Microsoft disillusioned me of that concept pretty
        thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may make technology that solves
        human problems. It's just that that's not really
        Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps them sell software, but
        it's the selling of software that they really care about.
        David Gelernter (from Yale University) has written some
        stuff about how "technology doesn't solve social problems",
        how he expected technology to solve social problems and
        went through a similar (though milder :) disillusionment.

        One of the reasons I have the view that I have is that I
        now interpret technological development as being part of
        the same process that drives biological development. And in
        the biological realm, there is nothing special about the
        human species -- it is just another species. So I question
        the argument that John Smart puts fourth, that advanced
        technology in the future will care about solving human
        problems. We don't care about other species (we, humans,
        are causing a mass extinction right now), for the most part
        -- there are exceptions like Rainforest Action Network and
        so on. So while the human species unquestionably rules the
        planet at the moment -- but only at the moment. The process
        of evolution does not intrinsically favor the human
        species. So I don't see why future robots with strong AI
        will care to spend their intelligence solving humanity's
        problems. On the other hand, I don't agree with Mark Gubrud
        that extinction is a likely result. I see no evidence that
        the development of complex species causes the simple ones
        to go extinct simply because they are simple. Otherwise
        there would not be microbes and insects and so fourth
        today. So I would not expect advanced technology to do that
        either.

        This reminds me of the brief discussion with Chris Phoenix
        about uploads, and this gives you some idea of the
        complexity of the economics behind all this. Chris was
        saying that "everyone" will be able to upload, because, as
        technology advances, it gets cheaper, and eventually
        everyone will be able to afford it. And I was saying, wait
        a minute, you're looking at only one half of the equation,
        the buying side. Technology also affects the earning side.
        If there are computers costing $1000 or $2000 that have
        strong AI -- and can therefore do any job a human can do --
        will there be any jobs? So to keep up with the machines,
        everyone has to get cybernetic implants, so their brains
        can keep up with Moore's Law. And how much does that
        technology cost? What percentage of the population will be
        able to afford it? So you see, we're not just talking about
        how much technology costs to make and sell, but how people
        will earn the money to buy it -- how these two factors will
        fit together. That's pretty extremely hard to predict with
        today's understanding of economics. I certainly can't do
        it. Maybe in a few years, I will understand well enough to
        calculate something like this.

        Wayne

        --- Joseph Anderson <bigwhiskey@...> wrote:
        > Yea...and kudos...but
        >
        > If there's room at the bottom....
        >
        > and aint' nobody buying to maintain a market...
        >
        > then it's nothing more than nanotech for "nada" or oh!
        > no-profits?
        >
        > Pretty soon...your local economy is devastasted and YOU'RE at
        > the bottom!
        >
        > Technology has several environments it's responsible for. Like
        > it or not. Biological is one. Economic is certainly the
        > other.
        >
        > Or do you pour money into spin-doctors and artificial price
        > supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting, and WorldCom's
        > accounting techniques?
        > So...for a while, no-on will notice?
        >
        > On the otherhand...if you can convince people to work for next
        > to nothing ( especially you California High $$ types ) or are
        > willing to suffer the consequences of globalization where
        > Government interests and Corp Interest cannot co-exist.
        > Then...Have yo' technology!! ..and more of it!
        > ( q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:
        >
        > The Trap
        >
        > The Response
        >
        > http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html
        > )
        >
        > Somwhere earlier there was a "joie-de-vivre" on these Salons
        > regarding technology being able to continue despite adversity.
        > " For higher silicon evolution!"
        >
        > You know like war? I think someone particularly mentioned that
        > "side-track" to technological progress.
        >
        > I keep remembering a cartoon in the Village Voice by Oliphant,
        > during the week the Neutron Bomb was announced, as a device
        > that did not destroy buildings. Of course, I don't have to
        > tell you and the NYTimes article never said...er um but kills
        > a whoppin' lot of people with high-radiation levels over 3-7
        > days. It showed a bunch of accountants jumping for joy on
        > their desks!
        >
        >
        > This is what gets me most. The survival instinct when
        > assuaged by technology for technology sake, opinions and
        > modern day tech toys...gets overlooked and in the
        > process...over-ridden.
        >
        >
        >
        > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
        > >
        > >Whoops. Where is my brain? Maybe this is a sign that it's
        > >time to go to bed. When I read these articles several
        > >days ago, I was thinking that they'd put 90-nm technology
        > >into production, and were going to increase the volume.
        > >But I just looked at them again, and both articles clearly
        > >say that the 90-nm technology won't go into
        > >production until "next year". So I'm 4 months too soon.
        > >So pbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpt!
        > >
        > >I also didn't remember the previous article right. It
        > >was for 65-nm process technology, not 70-nm, although it
        > >mentions 70-nm technology. Here's the previous article, if
        > >they haven't taken it down:
        > >
        > >http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1938/020502infineonnanya/
        > >
        > >It says, "(UMC) announced a plan earlier this year to build
        > >a 300-millimeter wafer plant in Singapore and to collaborate
        > >[with AMD] on production technologies down to 65 nanometers."
        > >
        > >
        > >--- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
        > >>
        > >> For those of you interestest in "where are we right now"
        > >> in the process of accelerating technological change:
        > >>
        > >> Last I posted, I said the current state of the art in
        > >> the semiconductor industry was 130 nanometer feature size,
        > >> and that there was serious work underway for development
        > >> of 70-nanometer technology.
        > >>
        > >> Well, those numbers have both just crept another notch
        > >> downward, on our march towards single molecules and atoms.
        > >> Intel has just announced that it has 90 nanometer fabs
        > >> in production. And they are now talking about developing
        > >> 60 (or 50?) nanometer semiconductors. You heard it here
        > >> first (probably)
        > >>
        > >> --
        > >>
        > >> Intel will increase the performance of its microprocessors
        > >> next year, in part by spreading out its silicon atoms.
        > >> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-949493.html
        > >>
        > >> Intel releases details on 90-nanometer process
        > >> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2076/020813intel90nanometer/
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> __________________________________________________
        > >> Do You Yahoo!?
        > >> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
        > >> http://www.hotjobs.com
        > >>
        > >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > >>
        > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >> bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >>
        > >>
        > >
        > >
        > >__________________________________________________
        > >Do You Yahoo!?
        > >HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
        > >http://www.hotjobs.com
        > >
        > >
        > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > >bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        > _____________________________________________________________
        > A free email account your friends will never forget!
        > Get YOURNAME@... at http://www.emailaccount.com/
        >
        > _____________________________________________________________
        > Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with
        > email@... by Everyone.net
        > http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
        http://www.hotjobs.com
      • Joseph Anderson
        Uh....Wayne... Since I m such a nice guy, I m gonna give you 7 days to check your facts on this before I, er... Let you have it. j.s.a. ...
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 22 11:33 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Uh....Wayne...

          Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna give you 7 days to check your facts on this before I, er...

          Let you have it.

          j.s.a.

          --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
          >
          >--- Joseph Anderson <bigwhiskey@...> wrote:
          >> Yea...and kudos...but
          >>
          >> If there's room at the bottom....
          >>
          >> and aint' nobody buying to maintain a market...
          >>
          >> then it's nothing more than nanotech for "nada" or oh!
          >> no-profits?
          >
          >I don't see what you are getting at here. Semiconductor
          >sales started increasing in April. We're already into the
          >next boom cycle. It's pretty weak at this point, but it
          >will grow. There are buyers in the market, and as
          >technology gets more powerful, there will be more products
          >people want to buy.
          >
          >> Pretty soon...your local economy is devastasted and YOU'RE
          >> at the bottom!
          >
          >I don't see what you are getting at here. There are many
          >devastated local economies in the world. This does not
          >affect the accelerating pace of technology development.
          >
          >> Technology has several environments it's responsible for.
          >> Like it or not. Biological is one. Economic is certainly
          >> the other.
          >>
          >> Or do you pour money into spin-doctors and artificial price
          >> supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting, and WorldCom's
          >> accounting techniques? So...for a while, no-on will notice?
          >
          >Again, the collapse of Enron, Anderson, Global Crossing,
          >WorldCom, etc, does not slow the pace of technology. This
          >may seem counterintuitive, but it has no effect.
          >
          >> On the otherhand...if you can convince people to work for
          >> next to nothing ( especially you California High $$ types )
          >> or are willing to suffer the consequences of globalization
          >> where Government interests and Corp Interest cannot
          >> co-exist. Then...Have yo' technology!! ..and more of it! (
          >> q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:
          >>
          >> The Trap
          >>
          >> The Response
          >>
          >> http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html
          >
          >Interesting article. Thanks. I'm not sure how it ties in
          >with my post. The theme of this article is "free trade".
          >What's the connection? That semiconductors are manufactured
          >by "free trade"? That technological advancement has not
          >brought economic equality between nations?
          >
          >> Somwhere earlier there was a "joie-de-vivre" on these
          >> Salons regarding technology being able to continue despite
          >> adversity. " For higher silicon evolution!"
          >>
          >> You know like war? I think someone particularly mentioned
          >> that "side-track" to technological progress.
          >
          >That was me, yup. But I don't know where you got the " For
          >higher silicon evolution!" part. I'm only saying that, as a
          >matter of fact, economic recession does not slow down the
          >advancement of technology. If you don't believe me, draw a
          >graph. Plot out transistor size, or CPU clock speed, or
          >whatever, and see whether it goes down during the current
          >economic recession.
          >
          >You'll see, it doesn't, it maintains its exponential
          >trajectory. This is not a "joie-de-vivre", this is an
          >empirical fact.
          >
          >> I keep remembering a cartoon in the Village Voice by
          >> Oliphant, during the week the Neutron Bomb was announced,
          >> as a device that did not destroy buildings. Of course, I
          >> don't have to tell you and the NYTimes article never
          >> said...er um but kills a whoppin' lot of people with
          >> high-radiation levels over 3-7 days. It showed a bunch of
          >> accountants jumping for joy on their desks!
          >>
          >>
          >> This is what gets me most. The survival instinct when
          >> assuaged by technology for technology sake, opinions and
          >> modern day tech toys...gets overlooked and in the
          >> process...over-ridden.
          >
          >Quite possibly.
          >
          >There seem to be 3 main lines of thought on this sort of
          >thing.
          >
          >1) The optimistic outlook -- technological advancement
          >will, by itself, make everything better. John Smart is
          >definitely in this category. He believes that, as the
          >technological singularity approaches, that we will all be
          >amazed by the speed at which the remaining human problems
          >are solved. He has some of the most clever and unusual
          >arguments of any of the thinkers I know of, such as the
          >idea that as a complex adaptive system increases in
          >complexity, it also increases the concentration on
          >positive-sum interactions, and decreases in violence and
          >other zero-sum or negative-sum interactions. Ray Kurzweil
          >sort of goes in this category -- he likes to talk about how
          >human lifespan is being extended exponentially and so
          >fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges the downside -- he has a
          >"Dangerous Futures" section on his website and so on.
          >So he is not 100% in this category, but I think that is
          >the overall theme of his thinking.
          >
          >2) The "we can control the outcome" outlook -- I would put
          >Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, Christine Peterson,
          >etc), because Foresight's basic premise is that if you can
          >influence the "initial conditions" of technological
          >development early in the process, then you can influence
          >where the whole trajectory goes and thereby head the system
          >off in the direction of a positive outcome. I would put
          >Eliezer Yudkowsky in this category as well, although he
          >seems to take the view that he personally is going to
          >invent strong AI, preprogram it with Asimov laws, and save
          >the world (more or less). Of course, you can probably guess,
          >by the wording I use, that I'm very skeptical his approach
          >will work. :)
          >
          >3) The "pessimistic" outlook. This is the "technology will
          >make humanity extinct!" point of view expressed by people
          >like Mark Gubrud. And possibly Bill Joy, although I was
          >never sure whether Bill Joy really believes this point of
          >view or whether he was just trying to provoke widespread
          >discussion on the issue. (Which he certainly did in any
          >case). Gubrud takes the moralistic position -- that humans
          >must stop technology because technology will make humanity
          >extinct, and that's morally wrong.
          >
          >For my part, I think I lean towards the pessimistic
          >viewpoint simply because I was once a big believer in the
          >"techno-utopian" viewpoint -- the idea that we'll invent
          >technology that will solve humanity's problems. My time at
          >Microsoft disillusioned me of that concept pretty
          >thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may make technology that solves
          >human problems. It's just that that's not really
          >Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps them sell software, but
          >it's the selling of software that they really care about.
          >David Gelernter (from Yale University) has written some
          >stuff about how "technology doesn't solve social problems",
          >how he expected technology to solve social problems and
          >went through a similar (though milder :) disillusionment.
          >
          >One of the reasons I have the view that I have is that I
          >now interpret technological development as being part of
          >the same process that drives biological development. And in
          >the biological realm, there is nothing special about the
          >human species -- it is just another species. So I question
          >the argument that John Smart puts fourth, that advanced
          >technology in the future will care about solving human
          >problems. We don't care about other species (we, humans,
          >are causing a mass extinction right now), for the most part
          >-- there are exceptions like Rainforest Action Network and
          >so on. So while the human species unquestionably rules the
          >planet at the moment -- but only at the moment. The process
          >of evolution does not intrinsically favor the human
          >species. So I don't see why future robots with strong AI
          >will care to spend their intelligence solving humanity's
          >problems. On the other hand, I don't agree with Mark Gubrud
          >that extinction is a likely result. I see no evidence that
          >the development of complex species causes the simple ones
          >to go extinct simply because they are simple. Otherwise
          >there would not be microbes and insects and so fourth
          >today. So I would not expect advanced technology to do that
          >either.
          >
          >This reminds me of the brief discussion with Chris Phoenix
          >about uploads, and this gives you some idea of the
          >complexity of the economics behind all this. Chris was
          >saying that "everyone" will be able to upload, because, as
          >technology advances, it gets cheaper, and eventually
          >everyone will be able to afford it. And I was saying, wait
          >a minute, you're looking at only one half of the equation,
          >the buying side. Technology also affects the earning side.
          >If there are computers costing $1000 or $2000 that have
          >strong AI -- and can therefore do any job a human can do --
          >will there be any jobs? So to keep up with the machines,
          >everyone has to get cybernetic implants, so their brains
          >can keep up with Moore's Law. And how much does that
          >technology cost? What percentage of the population will be
          >able to afford it? So you see, we're not just talking about
          >how much technology costs to make and sell, but how people
          >will earn the money to buy it -- how these two factors will
          >fit together. That's pretty extremely hard to predict with
          >today's understanding of economics. I certainly can't do
          >it. Maybe in a few years, I will understand well enough to
          >calculate something like this.
          >
          >Wayne
          >
          >--- Joseph Anderson <bigwhiskey@...> wrote:
          >> Yea...and kudos...but
          >>
          >> If there's room at the bottom....
          >>
          >> and aint' nobody buying to maintain a market...
          >>
          >> then it's nothing more than nanotech for "nada" or oh!
          >> no-profits?
          >>
          >> Pretty soon...your local economy is devastasted and YOU'RE at
          >> the bottom!
          >>
          >> Technology has several environments it's responsible for. Like
          >> it or not. Biological is one. Economic is certainly the
          >> other.
          >>
          >> Or do you pour money into spin-doctors and artificial price
          >> supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting, and WorldCom's
          >> accounting techniques?
          >> So...for a while, no-on will notice?
          >>
          >> On the otherhand...if you can convince people to work for next
          >> to nothing ( especially you California High $$ types ) or are
          >> willing to suffer the consequences of globalization where
          >> Government interests and Corp Interest cannot co-exist.
          >> Then...Have yo' technology!! ..and more of it!
          >> ( q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:
          >>
          >> The Trap
          >>
          >> The Response
          >>
          >> http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html
          >> )
          >>
          >> Somwhere earlier there was a "joie-de-vivre" on these Salons
          >> regarding technology being able to continue despite adversity.
          >> " For higher silicon evolution!"
          >>
          >> You know like war? I think someone particularly mentioned that
          >> "side-track" to technological progress.
          >>
          >> I keep remembering a cartoon in the Village Voice by Oliphant,
          >> during the week the Neutron Bomb was announced, as a device
          >> that did not destroy buildings. Of course, I don't have to
          >> tell you and the NYTimes article never said...er um but kills
          >> a whoppin' lot of people with high-radiation levels over 3-7
          >> days. It showed a bunch of accountants jumping for joy on
          >> their desks!
          >>
          >>
          >> This is what gets me most. The survival instinct when
          >> assuaged by technology for technology sake, opinions and
          >> modern day tech toys...gets overlooked and in the
          >> process...over-ridden.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
          >> >
          >> >Whoops. Where is my brain? Maybe this is a sign that it's
          >> >time to go to bed. When I read these articles several
          >> >days ago, I was thinking that they'd put 90-nm technology
          >> >into production, and were going to increase the volume.
          >> >But I just looked at them again, and both articles clearly
          >> >say that the 90-nm technology won't go into
          >> >production until "next year". So I'm 4 months too soon.
          >> >So pbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpt!
          >> >
          >> >I also didn't remember the previous article right. It
          >> >was for 65-nm process technology, not 70-nm, although it
          >> >mentions 70-nm technology. Here's the previous article, if
          >> >they haven't taken it down:
          >> >
          >> >http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1938/020502infineonnanya/
          >> >
          >> >It says, "(UMC) announced a plan earlier this year to build
          >> >a 300-millimeter wafer plant in Singapore and to collaborate
          >> >[with AMD] on production technologies down to 65 nanometers."
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >--- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
          >> >>
          >> >> For those of you interestest in "where are we right now"
          >> >> in the process of accelerating technological change:
          >> >>
          >> >> Last I posted, I said the current state of the art in
          >> >> the semiconductor industry was 130 nanometer feature size,
          >> >> and that there was serious work underway for development
          >> >> of 70-nanometer technology.
          >> >>
          >> >> Well, those numbers have both just crept another notch
          >> >> downward, on our march towards single molecules and atoms.
          >> >> Intel has just announced that it has 90 nanometer fabs
          >> >> in production. And they are now talking about developing
          >> >> 60 (or 50?) nanometer semiconductors. You heard it here
          >> >> first (probably)
          >> >>
          >> >> --
          >> >>
          >> >> Intel will increase the performance of its microprocessors
          >> >> next year, in part by spreading out its silicon atoms.
          >> >> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-949493.html
          >> >>
          >> >> Intel releases details on 90-nanometer process
          >> >> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2076/020813intel90nanometer/
          >> >>
          >> >>
          >> >>
          >> >> __________________________________________________
          >> >> Do You Yahoo!?
          >> >> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
          >> >> http://www.hotjobs.com
          >> >>
          >> >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >> >>
          >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> >> bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >> >>
          >> >>
          >> >>
          >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >> >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >> >>
          >> >>
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >__________________________________________________
          >> >Do You Yahoo!?
          >> >HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
          >> >http://www.hotjobs.com
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> >bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >>
          >> _____________________________________________________________
          >> A free email account your friends will never forget!
          >> Get YOURNAME@... at http://www.emailaccount.com/
          >>
          >> _____________________________________________________________
          >> Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with
          >> email@... by Everyone.net
          >> http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag
          >>
          >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >>
          >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >> bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >__________________________________________________
          >Do You Yahoo!?
          >HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
          >http://www.hotjobs.com
          >
          >
          >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

          _____________________________________________________________
          A free email account your friends will never forget!
          Get YOURNAME@... at http://www.emailaccount.com/

          _____________________________________________________________
          Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with email@... by Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag
        • wayne radinsky
          Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good does that do? We ll all be smarter and better off if we put our heads together and learn from each other rather
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 24 5:04 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good does that do?
            We'll all be smarter and better off if we put our heads
            together and learn from each other rather than make
            threats, no?

            Maybe I am just being naive again.

            Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong about, but
            things seem to check out to me. I said that chip sales
            were growing since April.

            Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter
            http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235

            May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for Worldwide
            Semiconductor Industry
            http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231

            This is a more recent article:

            Chip sector releases mixed figures
            http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html

            I interpret this to mean that the waters are still choppy.
            Although I suppose you could argue that it's the beginning
            of another downturn, but I don't expect that.

            As for communications equipment sales, actually I didn't say
            telecom sales were going back up, (only the semiconductor
            industry as a whole) and they haven't yet.

            OE Markets - Demand
            http://www.oida.org/demand.html

            OE component sales, 2001
            http://www.oida.org/comprev.html

            The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999 levels.
            (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic eqipment.
            Telecom specifically took a bigger hit.

            Optical networking's next frontier
            http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm

            I said Moore's Law continues in spite of economic recession.
            Recently:

            Intel Begins Shipping Itanium 2 Processors
            http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm

            Intel Ships The World's First 2 Gigahertz Microprocessor For
            Mobile PCs
            http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm

            Intel Unveils World's Most Advanced Chip-Making Process
            http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm

            And telecom technology is continuing to advance in spite
            of the recession as well, and a quick look at any telecom
            equipment vendor web site will show.

            Scientists at Bell Labs have used their collective
            multidisciplinary expertise to help design LambdaXtreme
            Transport, the most advanced long-distance communications
            system now on the market.
            http://www.bell-labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html

            JDS Uniphase Announces New Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers
            http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%20Amplifiers


            JDS Uniphase Boosts High-Level Functionality of RX3
            Series Multichannel Backreflection Meters with Two New
            Features
            Unique three-laser wavelength testing and 10 mm InGaAs
            detector provide broader testing capabilities, reduce
            ownership cost
            http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%20Features


            JDS Uniphase Announces Dramatic Performance Improvement In Thin
            Film Filters for Wideband Applications
            http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%20Applications


            Now what you really want to do is graph out processor
            performance per dollar over time. For bandwidth, it's
            harder because there are more variables, but what you
            want to do is calculate Gb / s / km / dollar for telecom
            equipment and show that it is an exponential curve over
            long periods of time. This is the whole essence of Gilder's
            Law / Huber's Law. I don't have the data to do this but
            maybe you can find it and calculate it. The price data
            is important because the calculation is per unit cost.
            The industry now is focusing more on decreasing cost
            on the low end than on advancing the high end.

            Finally, here is an article about the telecom meltdown.
            If you think the recession has stopped technology
            advancement, you might have the cause and effect backwards.
            The author believes that the rapid pace of technology
            advancement is one of the *causes* of the telecom meltdown.
            As you might expect, if long-distance phone service is
            "free", that has severe consequences for the people who
            build their business on it. (As I mentioned earlier,
            Nathan Myhrvold predicted in 1993 that long distance would
            become free.)

            Future not so bright for telecoms
            http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm

            Ok, let me have it.


            --- Joseph Anderson <bigwhiskey@...> wrote:
            > Uh....Wayne...
            >
            > Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna give you 7 days to check
            > your facts on this before I, er...
            >
            > Let you have it.
            >
            > j.s.a.
            >
            > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
            > >
            > >--- Joseph Anderson <bigwhiskey@...> wrote:
            > >> Yea...and kudos...but
            > >>
            > >> If there's room at the bottom....
            > >>
            > >> and aint' nobody buying to maintain a market...
            > >>
            > >> then it's nothing more than nanotech for "nada" or oh!
            > >> no-profits?
            > >
            > >I don't see what you are getting at here. Semiconductor
            > >sales started increasing in April. We're already into the
            > >next boom cycle. It's pretty weak at this point, but it
            > >will grow. There are buyers in the market, and as
            > >technology gets more powerful, there will be more products
            > >people want to buy.
            > >
            > >> Pretty soon...your local economy is devastasted and YOU'RE
            > >> at the bottom!
            > >
            > >I don't see what you are getting at here. There are many
            > >devastated local economies in the world. This does not
            > >affect the accelerating pace of technology development.
            > >
            > >> Technology has several environments it's responsible for.
            > >> Like it or not. Biological is one. Economic is certainly
            > >> the other.
            > >>
            > >> Or do you pour money into spin-doctors and artificial price
            > >> supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting, and WorldCom's
            > >> accounting techniques? So...for a while, no-on will notice?
            > >
            > >Again, the collapse of Enron, Anderson, Global Crossing,
            > >WorldCom, etc, does not slow the pace of technology. This
            > >may seem counterintuitive, but it has no effect.
            > >
            > >> On the otherhand...if you can convince people to work for
            > >> next to nothing ( especially you California High $$ types )
            > >> or are willing to suffer the consequences of globalization
            > >> where Government interests and Corp Interest cannot
            > >> co-exist. Then...Have yo' technology!! ..and more of it! (
            > >> q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:
            > >>
            > >> The Trap
            > >>
            > >> The Response
            > >>
            > >> http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html
            > >
            > >Interesting article. Thanks. I'm not sure how it ties in
            > >with my post. The theme of this article is "free trade".
            > >What's the connection? That semiconductors are manufactured
            > >by "free trade"? That technological advancement has not
            > >brought economic equality between nations?
            > >
            > >> Somwhere earlier there was a "joie-de-vivre" on these
            > >> Salons regarding technology being able to continue despite
            > >> adversity. " For higher silicon evolution!"
            > >>
            > >> You know like war? I think someone particularly mentioned
            > >> that "side-track" to technological progress.
            > >
            > >That was me, yup. But I don't know where you got the " For
            > >higher silicon evolution!" part. I'm only saying that, as a
            > >matter of fact, economic recession does not slow down the
            > >advancement of technology. If you don't believe me, draw a
            > >graph. Plot out transistor size, or CPU clock speed, or
            > >whatever, and see whether it goes down during the current
            > >economic recession.
            > >
            > >You'll see, it doesn't, it maintains its exponential
            > >trajectory. This is not a "joie-de-vivre", this is an
            > >empirical fact.
            > >
            > >> I keep remembering a cartoon in the Village Voice by
            > >> Oliphant, during the week the Neutron Bomb was announced,
            > >> as a device that did not destroy buildings. Of course, I
            > >> don't have to tell you and the NYTimes article never
            > >> said...er um but kills a whoppin' lot of people with
            > >> high-radiation levels over 3-7 days. It showed a bunch of
            > >> accountants jumping for joy on their desks!
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> This is what gets me most. The survival instinct when
            > >> assuaged by technology for technology sake, opinions and
            > >> modern day tech toys...gets overlooked and in the
            > >> process...over-ridden.
            > >
            > >Quite possibly.
            > >
            > >There seem to be 3 main lines of thought on this sort of
            > >thing.
            > >
            > >1) The optimistic outlook -- technological advancement
            > >will, by itself, make everything better. John Smart is
            > >definitely in this category. He believes that, as the
            > >technological singularity approaches, that we will all be
            > >amazed by the speed at which the remaining human problems
            > >are solved. He has some of the most clever and unusual
            > >arguments of any of the thinkers I know of, such as the
            > >idea that as a complex adaptive system increases in
            > >complexity, it also increases the concentration on
            > >positive-sum interactions, and decreases in violence and
            > >other zero-sum or negative-sum interactions. Ray Kurzweil
            > >sort of goes in this category -- he likes to talk about how
            > >human lifespan is being extended exponentially and so
            > >fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges the downside -- he has a
            > >"Dangerous Futures" section on his website and so on.
            > >So he is not 100% in this category, but I think that is
            > >the overall theme of his thinking.
            > >
            > >2) The "we can control the outcome" outlook -- I would put
            > >Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, Christine Peterson,
            > >etc), because Foresight's basic premise is that if you can
            > >influence the "initial conditions" of technological
            > >development early in the process, then you can influence
            > >where the whole trajectory goes and thereby head the system
            > >off in the direction of a positive outcome. I would put
            > >Eliezer Yudkowsky in this category as well, although he
            > >seems to take the view that he personally is going to
            > >invent strong AI, preprogram it with Asimov laws, and save
            > >the world (more or less). Of course, you can probably guess,
            > >by the wording I use, that I'm very skeptical his approach
            > >will work. :)
            > >
            > >3) The "pessimistic" outlook. This is the "technology will
            > >make humanity extinct!" point of view expressed by people
            > >like Mark Gubrud. And possibly Bill Joy, although I was
            > >never sure whether Bill Joy really believes this point of
            > >view or whether he was just trying to provoke widespread
            > >discussion on the issue. (Which he certainly did in any
            > >case). Gubrud takes the moralistic position -- that humans
            > >must stop technology because technology will make humanity
            > >extinct, and that's morally wrong.
            > >
            > >For my part, I think I lean towards the pessimistic
            > >viewpoint simply because I was once a big believer in the
            > >"techno-utopian" viewpoint -- the idea that we'll invent
            > >technology that will solve humanity's problems. My time at
            > >Microsoft disillusioned me of that concept pretty
            > >thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may make technology that solves
            > >human problems. It's just that that's not really
            > >Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps them sell software, but
            > >it's the selling of software that they really care about.
            > >David Gelernter (from Yale University) has written some
            > >stuff about how "technology doesn't solve social problems",
            > >how he expected technology to solve social problems and
            > >went through a similar (though milder :) disillusionment.
            > >
            > >One of the reasons I have the view that I have is that I
            > >now interpret technological development as being part of
            > >the same process that drives biological development. And in
            > >the biological realm, there is nothing special about the
            > >human species -- it is just another species. So I question
            > >the argument that John Smart puts fourth, that advanced
            > >technology in the future will care about solving human
            > >problems. We don't care about other species (we, humans,
            > >are causing a mass extinction right now), for the most part
            > >-- there are exceptions like Rainforest Action Network and
            > >so on. So while the human species unquestionably rules the
            > >planet at the moment -- but only at the moment. The process
            > >of evolution does not intrinsically favor the human
            > >species. So I don't see why future robots with strong AI
            > >will care to spend their intelligence solving humanity's
            > >problems. On the other hand, I don't agree with Mark Gubrud
            > >that extinction is a likely result. I see no evidence that
            > >the development of complex species causes the simple ones
            > >to go extinct simply because they are simple. Otherwise
            > >there would not be microbes and insects and so fourth
            > >today. So I would not expect advanced technology to do that
            > >either.
            > >
            > >This reminds me of the brief discussion with Chris Phoenix
            > >about uploads, and this gives you some idea of the
            > >complexity of the economics behind all this. Chris was
            > >saying that "everyone" will be able to upload, because, as
            > >technology advances, it gets cheaper, and eventually
            > >everyone will be able to afford it. And I was saying, wait
            > >a minute, you're looking at only one half of the equation,
            > >the buying side. Technology also affects the earning side.
            > >If there are computers costing $1000 or $2000 that have
            > >strong AI -- and can therefore do any job a human can do --
            > >will there be any jobs? So to keep up with the machines,
            > >everyone has to get cybernetic implants, so their brains
            > >can keep up with Moore's Law. And how much does that
            > >technology cost? What percentage of the population will be
            > >able to afford it? So you see, we're not just talking about
            > >how much technology costs to make and sell, but how people
            > >will earn the money to buy it -- how these two factors will
            > >fit together. That's pretty extremely hard to predict with
            >
            === message truncated ===


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
            http://finance.yahoo.com
          • Joschka Fisher
            YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION. J.S.ANDERSON ... Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good does that do?
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 26 1:10 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION.
              J.S.ANDERSON


              --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> a écrit :
              <HR>
              <html><body>


              <tt>
              <BR>
              Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good does
              that do?<BR>
              We'll all be smarter and better off if we put our
              heads<BR>
              together and learn from each other rather than
              make<BR>
              threats, no?<BR>
              <BR>
              Maybe I am just being naive again.<BR>
              <BR>
              Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong about,
              but<BR>
              things seem to check out to me. I said that chip
              sales<BR>
              were growing since April.<BR>
              <BR>
              Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter <BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for Worldwide<BR>
              Semiconductor Industry <BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a><BR>
              <BR>
              This is a more recent article:<BR>
              <BR>
              Chip sector releases mixed figures<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              I interpret this to mean that the waters are still
              choppy.<BR>
              Although I suppose you could argue that it's the
              beginning<BR>
              of another downturn, but I don't expect that.<BR>
              <BR>
              As for communications equipment sales, actually I
              didn't say<BR>
              telecom sales were going back up, (only the
              semiconductor<BR>
              industry as a whole) and they haven't yet.<BR>
              <BR>
              OE Markets - Demand<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              OE component sales, 2001 <BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.html">http://www.oida.org/comprev.html</a><BR>
              <BR>
              The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999
              levels.<BR>
              (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic
              eqipment.<BR>
              Telecom specifically took a bigger hit.<BR>
              <BR>
              Optical networking's next frontier<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm">http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a><BR>
              <BR>
              I said Moore's Law continues in spite of economic
              recession.<BR>
              Recently:<BR>
              <BR>
              Intel Begins Shipping Itanium 2 Processors<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a><BR>
              <BR>
              Intel Ships The World's First 2 Gigahertz
              Microprocessor For<BR>
              Mobile PCs <BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a><BR>
              <BR>
              Intel Unveils World's Most Advanced Chip-Making
              Process<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a><BR>
              <BR>
              And telecom technology is continuing to advance in
              spite<BR>
              of the recession as well, and a quick look at any
              telecom<BR>
              equipment vendor web site will show.<BR>
              <BR>
              Scientists at Bell Labs have used their collective<BR>
              multidisciplinary expertise to help design
              LambdaXtreme<BR>
              Transport, the most advanced long-distance
              communications<BR>
              system now on the market.<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.bell-labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html">http://www.bell-labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html</a>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              JDS Uniphase Announces New Semiconductor Optical
              Amplifiers<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%20Amplifiers">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%20Amplifiers</a><BR>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              JDS Uniphase Boosts High-Level Functionality of
              RX3<BR>
              Series Multichannel Backreflection Meters with Two
              New<BR>
              Features <BR>
              Unique three-laser wavelength testing and 10 mm
              InGaAs<BR>
              detector provide broader testing capabilities,
              reduce<BR>
              ownership cost<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%20Features">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%20Features</a><BR>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              JDS Uniphase Announces Dramatic Performance
              Improvement In Thin<BR>
              Film Filters for Wideband Applications<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%20Applications">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%20Applications</a><BR>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              Now what you really want to do is graph out
              processor<BR>
              performance per dollar over time. For bandwidth,
              it's<BR>
              harder because there are more variables, but what
              you<BR>
              want to do is calculate Gb / s / km / dollar for
              telecom<BR>
              equipment and show that it is an exponential curve
              over<BR>
              long periods of time. This is the whole essence of
              Gilder's<BR>
              Law / Huber's Law. I don't have the data to do this
              but<BR>
              maybe you can find it and calculate it. The price
              data<BR>
              is important because the calculation is per unit
              cost.<BR>
              The industry now is focusing more on decreasing
              cost<BR>
              on the low end than on advancing the high end.<BR>
              <BR>
              Finally, here is an article about the telecom
              meltdown.<BR>
              If you think the recession has stopped technology<BR>
              advancement, you might have the cause and effect
              backwards.<BR>
              The author believes that the rapid pace of
              technology<BR>
              advancement is one of the *causes* of the telecom
              meltdown.<BR>
              As you might expect, if long-distance phone service
              is<BR>
              "free", that has severe consequences for the
              people who<BR>
              build their business on it. (As I mentioned earlier,
              <BR>
              Nathan Myhrvold predicted in 1993 that long distance
              would<BR>
              become free.)<BR>
              <BR>
              Future not so bright for telecoms<BR>
              <a
              href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a><BR>
              <BR>
              Ok, let me have it.<BR>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              --- Joseph Anderson
              <bigwhiskey@...> wrote:<BR>
              > Uh....Wayne...<BR>
              > <BR>
              > Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna give you 7
              days to check<BR>
              > your facts on this before I, er...<BR>
              > <BR>
              > Let you have it.<BR>
              > <BR>
              > j.s.a.<BR>
              > <BR>
              > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...>
              wrote:<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >--- Joseph Anderson
              <bigwhiskey@...> wrote:<BR>
              > >> Yea...and kudos...but<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> If there's room at the bottom....<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> and  aint' nobody buying to
              maintain a market...<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> then it's nothing more than nanotech for
              "nada" or oh!<BR>
              > >> no-profits?<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >I don't see what you are getting at here.
              Semiconductor<BR>
              > >sales started increasing in April. We're
              already into the<BR>
              > >next boom cycle. It's pretty weak at this
              point, but it<BR>
              > >will grow. There are buyers in the market,
              and as<BR>
              > >technology gets more powerful, there will be
              more products<BR>
              > >people want to buy.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >> Pretty soon...your local economy is
              devastasted and YOU'RE<BR>
              > >> at the bottom!<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >I don't see what you are getting at here.
              There are many<BR>
              > >devastated local economies in the world. This
              does not<BR>
              > >affect the accelerating pace of technology
              development.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >> Technology has several environments it's
              responsible for.<BR>
              > >> Like it or not.  Biological is
              one.  Economic is certainly<BR>
              > >> the other.<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> Or do you pour money into spin-doctors
              and artificial price<BR>
              > >> supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting,
              and WorldCom's<BR>
              > >> accounting techniques? So...for a while,
              no-on will notice?<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >Again, the collapse of Enron, Anderson,
              Global Crossing,<BR>
              > >WorldCom, etc, does not slow the pace of
              technology. This<BR>
              > >may seem counterintuitive, but it has no
              effect.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >> On the otherhand...if you can convince
              people to work for<BR>
              > >> next to nothing ( especially you
              California High $$ types )<BR>
              > >> or are willing to suffer the
              consequences of globalization<BR>
              > >> where Government interests and Corp
              Interest cannot<BR>
              > >> co-exist. Then...Have yo' technology!!
              ..and more of it! (<BR>
              > >> q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> The Trap<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> The Response<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> <a
              href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html">http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a><BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >Interesting article. Thanks. I'm not sure how
              it ties in<BR>
              > >with my post. The theme of this article is
              "free trade".<BR>
              > >What's the connection? That semiconductors
              are manufactured<BR>
              > >by "free trade"? That technological
              advancement has not<BR>
              > >brought economic equality between
              nations?<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >> Somwhere earlier there was a
              "joie-de-vivre" on these<BR>
              > >> Salons regarding technology being able
              to continue despite<BR>
              > >> adversity. " For higher silicon
              evolution!"<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> You know like war? I think someone
              particularly mentioned<BR>
              > >> that "side-track" to
              technological progress.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >That was me, yup. But I don't know where you
              got the " For<BR>
              > >higher silicon evolution!" part. I'm
              only saying that, as a<BR>
              > >matter of fact, economic recession does not
              slow down the<BR>
              > >advancement of technology. If you don't
              believe me, draw a<BR>
              > >graph. Plot out transistor size, or CPU clock
              speed, or<BR>
              > >whatever, and see whether it goes down during
              the current<BR>
              > >economic recession.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >You'll see, it doesn't, it maintains its
              exponential<BR>
              > >trajectory. This is not a
              "joie-de-vivre", this is an<BR>
              > >empirical fact.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >> I keep remembering a cartoon in the
              Village Voice by<BR>
              > >> Oliphant, during the week the Neutron
              Bomb was announced,<BR>
              > >> as a device that did not destroy
              buildings. Of course, I<BR>
              > >> don't have to tell you and the NYTimes
              article never<BR>
              > >> said...er um but kills a whoppin' lot of
              people with<BR>
              > >> high-radiation levels over 3-7
              days.  It showed a bunch of<BR>
              > >> accountants jumping for joy on their
              desks!<BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >><BR>
              > >> This is what gets me most.  The
              survival instinct when<BR>
              > >> assuaged by technology for technology
              sake, opinions and<BR>
              > >> modern day tech toys...gets overlooked
              and in the<BR>
              > >> process...over-ridden.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >Quite possibly.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >There seem to be 3 main lines of thought on
              this sort of<BR>
              > >thing.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >1) The optimistic outlook -- technological
              advancement<BR>
              > >will, by itself, make everything better. John
              Smart is<BR>
              > >definitely in this category. He believes
              that, as the<BR>
              > >technological singularity approaches, that we
              will all be<BR>
              > >amazed by the speed at which the remaining
              human problems<BR>
              > >are solved. He has some of the most clever
              and unusual<BR>
              > >arguments of any of the thinkers I know of,
              such as the<BR>
              > >idea that as a complex adaptive system
              increases in<BR>
              > >complexity, it also increases the
              concentration on<BR>
              > >positive-sum interactions, and decreases in
              violence and<BR>
              > >other zero-sum or negative-sum interactions.
              Ray Kurzweil<BR>
              > >sort of goes in this category -- he likes to
              talk about how<BR>
              > >human lifespan is being extended
              exponentially and so<BR>
              > >fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges the downside --
              he has a<BR>
              > >"Dangerous Futures" section on his
              website and so on.<BR>
              > >So he is not 100% in this category, but I
              think that is<BR>
              > >the overall theme of his thinking.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >2) The "we can control the outcome"
              outlook -- I would  put<BR>
              > >Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle,
              Christine Peterson,<BR>
              > >etc), because Foresight's basic premise is
              that if you can<BR>
              > >influence the "initial conditions"
              of technological<BR>
              > >development early in the process, then you
              can influence<BR>
              > >where the whole trajectory goes and thereby
              head the system<BR>
              > >off in the direction of a positive outcome. I
              would put<BR>
              > >Eliezer Yudkowsky in this category as well,
              although he<BR>
              > >seems to take the view that he personally is
              going to<BR>
              > >invent strong AI, preprogram it with Asimov
              laws, and save<BR>
              > >the world (more or less). Of course, you can
              probably guess,<BR>
              > >by the wording I use, that I'm very skeptical
              his approach<BR>
              > >will work. :)<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >3) The "pessimistic" outlook. This
              is the "technology will<BR>
              > >make humanity extinct!" point of view
              expressed by people<BR>
              > >like Mark Gubrud. And possibly Bill Joy,
              although I was<BR>
              > >never sure whether Bill Joy really believes
              this point of<BR>
              > >view or whether he was just trying to provoke
              widespread<BR>
              > >discussion on the issue. (Which he certainly
              did in any<BR>
              > >case). Gubrud takes the moralistic position
              -- that humans<BR>
              > >must stop technology because technology will
              make humanity<BR>
              > >extinct, and that's morally wrong.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >For my part, I think I lean towards the
              pessimistic<BR>
              > >viewpoint simply because I was once a big
              believer in the<BR>
              > >"techno-utopian" viewpoint -- the
              idea that we'll invent<BR>
              > >technology that will solve humanity's
              problems. My time at<BR>
              > >Microsoft disillusioned me of that concept
              pretty<BR>
              > >thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may make
              technology that solves<BR>
              > >human problems. It's just that that's not
              really<BR>
              > >Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps them sell
              software, but<BR>
              > >it's the selling of software that they really
              care about.<BR>
              > >David Gelernter (from Yale University) has
              written some<BR>
              > >stuff about how "technology doesn't
              solve social problems",<BR>
              > >how he expected technology to solve social
              problems and<BR>
              > >went through a similar (though milder :)
              disillusionment.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >One of the reasons I have the view that I
              have is that I<BR>
              > >now interpret technological development as
              being part of<BR>
              > >the same process that drives biological
              development. And in<BR>
              > >the biological realm, there is nothing
              special about the<BR>
              > >human species -- it is just another species.
              So I question<BR>
              > >the argument that John Smart puts fourth,
              that advanced<BR>
              > >technology in the future will care about
              solving human<BR>
              > >problems. We don't care about other species
              (we, humans,<BR>
              > >are causing a mass extinction right now), for
              the most part<BR>
              > >-- there are exceptions like Rainforest
              Action Network and<BR>
              > >so on. So while the human species
              unquestionably rules the<BR>
              > >planet at the moment -- but only at the
              moment. The process<BR>
              > >of evolution does not intrinsically favor the
              human<BR>
              > >species. So I don't see why future robots
              with strong AI<BR>
              > >will care to spend their intelligence solving
              humanity's<BR>
              > >problems. On the other hand, I don't agree
              with Mark Gubrud<BR>
              > >that extinction is a likely result. I see no
              evidence that<BR>
              > >the development of complex species causes the
              simple ones<BR>
              > >to go extinct simply because they are simple.
              Otherwise<BR>
              > >there would not be microbes and insects and
              so fourth<BR>
              > >today. So I would not expect advanced
              technology to do that<BR>
              > >either.<BR>
              > ><BR>
              > >This reminds me of the brief discussion with
              Chris Phoenix<BR>
              > >about uploads, and this gives you some idea
              of the<BR>
              > >complexity of the economics behind all this.
              Chris was<BR>
              > >saying that "everyone" will be able
              to upload, because, as<BR>
              > >technology advances, it gets cheaper, and
              eventually<BR>
              > >everyone will be able to afford it. And I was
              saying, wait<BR>
              > >a minute, you're looking at only one half of
              the equation,<BR>
              > >the buying side. Technology also affects the
              earning side.<BR>
              > >If there are computers costing $1000 or $2000
              that have<BR>
              > >strong AI -- and can therefore do any job a
              human can do --<BR>
              > >will there be any jobs? So to keep up with
              the machines,<BR>
              > >everyone has to get cybernetic implants, so
              their brains<BR>
              > >can keep up with Moore's Law. And how much
              does that<BR>
              > >technology cost? What percentage of the
              population will be<BR>
              > >able to afford it? So you see, we're not just
              talking about<BR>
              > >how much technology costs to make and sell,
              but how people<BR>
              > >will earn the money to buy it -- how these
              two factors will<BR>
              > >fit together. That's pretty extremely hard to
              predict with<BR>
              > <BR>
              === message truncated ===<BR>
              <BR>
              <BR>
              __________________________________________________<BR>
              Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
              Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes<BR>
              <a
              href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a><BR>
              </tt>

              <br>

              <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

              <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
              <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
              <td align=center><font size="-1"
              color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
              </tr>
              <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
              <td align=center width=470><table border=0
              cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
              face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
              href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb/S=1705890010:HM/A=1182692/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039-334
              " target="_top"><img border="0"
              src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_031_4for49p_3.gif"
              height="250" width="300"></a></td></tr></table></td>
              </tr>
              </table>

              <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


              <br>
              <tt>
              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
              bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
              <BR>
              </tt>
              <br>

              <br>
              <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
              href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
              of Service</a>.</tt>
              </br>

              </body></html>


              ___________________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
              Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
            • markfinnern
              Uhu, all in caps, VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION All your base are belong to us, or what? (See:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4143466,00.html)
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 27 1:17 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Uhu, all in caps, 'VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION'
                All your base are belong to us, or what?
                (See:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4143466,00.html)

                Well I felt compelled to check my passport, just to 'verify my
                infordentity'. Still the same old, same old, which is reaffirming.

                There is some nice anticipation building up here, the expectations
                are high, hope your post lives up to the hype.

                Darn, another 4 days.
                Can't wait, Mark.
                P.S. Like your fake Joschka Fischer email identity. Is that in homage
                to him?

                --- In bafuture@y..., Joschka Fisher <grabarkowic@y...> wrote:
                > YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION.
                > J.S.ANDERSON
                >
                >
                > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> a écrit :
                > <HR>
                > <html><body>
                >
                >
                > <tt>
                > <BR>
                > Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good does
                > that do?<BR>
                > We'll all be smarter and better off if we put our
                > heads<BR>
                > together and learn from each other rather than
                > make<BR>
                > threats, no?<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Maybe I am just being naive again.<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong about,
                > but<BR>
                > things seem to check out to me. I said that chip
                > sales<BR>
                > were growing since April.<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter <BR>
                > <a
                > href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?
                ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for Worldwide<BR>
                > Semiconductor Industry <BR>
                > <a
                > href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?
                ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a><BR>
                > <BR>
                > This is a more recent article:<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Chip sector releases mixed figures<BR>
                > <a
                >
                href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.th
                eregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > I interpret this to mean that the waters are still
                > choppy.<BR>
                > Although I suppose you could argue that it's the
                > beginning<BR>
                > of another downturn, but I don't expect that.<BR>
                > <BR>
                > As for communications equipment sales, actually I
                > didn't say<BR>
                > telecom sales were going back up, (only the
                > semiconductor<BR>
                > industry as a whole) and they haven't yet.<BR>
                > <BR>
                > OE Markets - Demand<BR>
                > <a
                >
                href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html
                </a>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > OE component sales, 2001 <BR>
                > <a
                >
                href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.html">http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht
                ml</a><BR>
                > <BR>
                > The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999
                > levels.<BR>
                > (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic
                > eqipment.<BR>
                > Telecom specifically took a bigger hit.<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Optical networking's next frontier<BR>
                > <a
                >
                href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm">htt
                p://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a><BR>
                > <BR>
                > I said Moore's Law continues in spite of economic
                > recession.<BR>
                > Recently:<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Intel Begins Shipping Itanium 2 Processors<BR>
                > <a
                >
                href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm
                ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a>
                <BR>
                > <BR>
                > Intel Ships The World's First 2 Gigahertz
                > Microprocessor For<BR>
                > Mobile PCs <BR>
                > <a
                >
                href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm
                ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a>
                <BR>
                > <BR>
                > Intel Unveils World's Most Advanced Chip-Making
                > Process<BR>
                > <a
                >
                href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm
                ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a>
                <BR>
                > <BR>
                > And telecom technology is continuing to advance in
                > spite<BR>
                > of the recession as well, and a quick look at any
                > telecom<BR>
                > equipment vendor web site will show.<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Scientists at Bell Labs have used their collective<BR>
                > multidisciplinary expertise to help design
                > LambdaXtreme<BR>
                > Transport, the most advanced long-distance
                > communications<BR>
                > system now on the market.<BR>
                > <a
                > href="http://www.bell-
                labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html">http://www.bell-
                labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html</a>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > JDS Uniphase Announces New Semiconductor Optical
                > Amplifiers<BR>
                > <a
                > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%
                20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%
                20Amplifiers">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=24
                9&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%
                20Optical%20Amplifiers</a><BR>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > JDS Uniphase Boosts High-Level Functionality of
                > RX3<BR>
                > Series Multichannel Backreflection Meters with Two
                > New<BR>
                > Features <BR>
                > Unique three-laser wavelength testing and 10 mm
                > InGaAs<BR>
                > detector provide broader testing capabilities,
                > reduce<BR>
                > ownership cost<BR>
                > <a
                > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%
                20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%
                20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%
                20Features">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=23
                1&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%
                20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%
                20Two%20New%20Features</a><BR>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > JDS Uniphase Announces Dramatic Performance
                > Improvement In Thin<BR>
                > Film Filters for Wideband Applications<BR>
                > <a
                > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%
                20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%
                20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%
                20Applications">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=23
                3&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%
                20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%
                20Applications</a><BR>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > Now what you really want to do is graph out
                > processor<BR>
                > performance per dollar over time. For bandwidth,
                > it's<BR>
                > harder because there are more variables, but what
                > you<BR>
                > want to do is calculate Gb / s / km / dollar for
                > telecom<BR>
                > equipment and show that it is an exponential curve
                > over<BR>
                > long periods of time. This is the whole essence of
                > Gilder's<BR>
                > Law / Huber's Law. I don't have the data to do this
                > but<BR>
                > maybe you can find it and calculate it. The price
                > data<BR>
                > is important because the calculation is per unit
                > cost.<BR>
                > The industry now is focusing more on decreasing
                > cost<BR>
                > on the low end than on advancing the high end.<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Finally, here is an article about the telecom
                > meltdown.<BR>
                > If you think the recession has stopped technology<BR>
                > advancement, you might have the cause and effect
                > backwards.<BR>
                > The author believes that the rapid pace of
                > technology<BR>
                > advancement is one of the *causes* of the telecom
                > meltdown.<BR>
                > As you might expect, if long-distance phone service
                > is<BR>
                > "free", that has severe consequences for the
                > people who<BR>
                > build their business on it. (As I mentioned earlier,
                > <BR>
                > Nathan Myhrvold predicted in 1993 that long distance
                > would<BR>
                > become free.)<BR>
                > <BR>
                > Future not so bright for telecoms<BR>
                > <a
                >
                href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm
                ">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a>
                <BR>
                > <BR>
                > Ok, let me have it.<BR>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > --- Joseph Anderson
                > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR>
                > > Uh....Wayne...<BR>
                > > <BR>
                > > Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna give you 7
                > days to check<BR>
                > > your facts on this before I, er...<BR>
                > > <BR>
                > > Let you have it.<BR>
                > > <BR>
                > > j.s.a.<BR>
                > > <BR>
                > > --- wayne radinsky spodware@y...
                > wrote:<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >--- Joseph Anderson
                > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR>
                > > >> Yea...and kudos...but<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> If there's room at the bottom....<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> and  aint' nobody buying to
                > maintain a market...<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> then it's nothing more than nanotech for
                > "nada" or oh!<BR>
                > > >> no-profits?<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >I don't see what you are getting at here.
                > Semiconductor<BR>
                > > >sales started increasing in April. We're
                > already into the<BR>
                > > >next boom cycle. It's pretty weak at this
                > point, but it<BR>
                > > >will grow. There are buyers in the market,
                > and as<BR>
                > > >technology gets more powerful, there will be
                > more products<BR>
                > > >people want to buy.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >> Pretty soon...your local economy is
                > devastasted and YOU'RE<BR>
                > > >> at the bottom!<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >I don't see what you are getting at here.
                > There are many<BR>
                > > >devastated local economies in the world. This
                > does not<BR>
                > > >affect the accelerating pace of technology
                > development.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >> Technology has several environments it's
                > responsible for.<BR>
                > > >> Like it or not.  Biological is
                > one.  Economic is certainly<BR>
                > > >> the other.<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> Or do you pour money into spin-doctors
                > and artificial price<BR>
                > > >> supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting,
                > and WorldCom's<BR>
                > > >> accounting techniques? So...for a while,
                > no-on will notice?<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >Again, the collapse of Enron, Anderson,
                > Global Crossing,<BR>
                > > >WorldCom, etc, does not slow the pace of
                > technology. This<BR>
                > > >may seem counterintuitive, but it has no
                > effect.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >> On the otherhand...if you can convince
                > people to work for<BR>
                > > >> next to nothing ( especially you
                > California High $$ types )<BR>
                > > >> or are willing to suffer the
                > consequences of globalization<BR>
                > > >> where Government interests and Corp
                > Interest cannot<BR>
                > > >> co-exist. Then...Have yo' technology!!
                > ..and more of it! (<BR>
                > > >> q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> The Trap<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> The Response<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> <a
                >
                href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html">http://ww
                w.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a><BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >Interesting article. Thanks. I'm not sure how
                > it ties in<BR>
                > > >with my post. The theme of this article is
                > "free trade".<BR>
                > > >What's the connection? That semiconductors
                > are manufactured<BR>
                > > >by "free trade"? That technological
                > advancement has not<BR>
                > > >brought economic equality between
                > nations?<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >> Somwhere earlier there was a
                > "joie-de-vivre" on these<BR>
                > > >> Salons regarding technology being able
                > to continue despite<BR>
                > > >> adversity. " For higher silicon
                > evolution!"<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> You know like war? I think someone
                > particularly mentioned<BR>
                > > >> that "side-track" to
                > technological progress.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >That was me, yup. But I don't know where you
                > got the " For<BR>
                > > >higher silicon evolution!" part. I'm
                > only saying that, as a<BR>
                > > >matter of fact, economic recession does not
                > slow down the<BR>
                > > >advancement of technology. If you don't
                > believe me, draw a<BR>
                > > >graph. Plot out transistor size, or CPU clock
                > speed, or<BR>
                > > >whatever, and see whether it goes down during
                > the current<BR>
                > > >economic recession.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >You'll see, it doesn't, it maintains its
                > exponential<BR>
                > > >trajectory. This is not a
                > "joie-de-vivre", this is an<BR>
                > > >empirical fact.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >> I keep remembering a cartoon in the
                > Village Voice by<BR>
                > > >> Oliphant, during the week the Neutron
                > Bomb was announced,<BR>
                > > >> as a device that did not destroy
                > buildings. Of course, I<BR>
                > > >> don't have to tell you and the NYTimes
                > article never<BR>
                > > >> said...er um but kills a whoppin' lot of
                > people with<BR>
                > > >> high-radiation levels over 3-7
                > days.  It showed a bunch of<BR>
                > > >> accountants jumping for joy on their
                > desks!<BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >><BR>
                > > >> This is what gets me most.  The
                > survival instinct when<BR>
                > > >> assuaged by technology for technology
                > sake, opinions and<BR>
                > > >> modern day tech toys...gets overlooked
                > and in the<BR>
                > > >> process...over-ridden.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >Quite possibly.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >There seem to be 3 main lines of thought on
                > this sort of<BR>
                > > >thing.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >1) The optimistic outlook -- technological
                > advancement<BR>
                > > >will, by itself, make everything better. John
                > Smart is<BR>
                > > >definitely in this category. He believes
                > that, as the<BR>
                > > >technological singularity approaches, that we
                > will all be<BR>
                > > >amazed by the speed at which the remaining
                > human problems<BR>
                > > >are solved. He has some of the most clever
                > and unusual<BR>
                > > >arguments of any of the thinkers I know of,
                > such as the<BR>
                > > >idea that as a complex adaptive system
                > increases in<BR>
                > > >complexity, it also increases the
                > concentration on<BR>
                > > >positive-sum interactions, and decreases in
                > violence and<BR>
                > > >other zero-sum or negative-sum interactions.
                > Ray Kurzweil<BR>
                > > >sort of goes in this category -- he likes to
                > talk about how<BR>
                > > >human lifespan is being extended
                > exponentially and so<BR>
                > > >fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges the downside --
                > he has a<BR>
                > > >"Dangerous Futures" section on his
                > website and so on.<BR>
                > > >So he is not 100% in this category, but I
                > think that is<BR>
                > > >the overall theme of his thinking.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >2) The "we can control the outcome"
                > outlook -- I would  put<BR>
                > > >Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle,
                > Christine Peterson,<BR>
                > > >etc), because Foresight's basic premise is
                > that if you can<BR>
                > > >influence the "initial conditions"
                > of technological<BR>
                > > >development early in the process, then you
                > can influence<BR>
                > > >where the whole trajectory goes and thereby
                > head the system<BR>
                > > >off in the direction of a positive outcome. I
                > would put<BR>
                > > >Eliezer Yudkowsky in this category as well,
                > although he<BR>
                > > >seems to take the view that he personally is
                > going to<BR>
                > > >invent strong AI, preprogram it with Asimov
                > laws, and save<BR>
                > > >the world (more or less). Of course, you can
                > probably guess,<BR>
                > > >by the wording I use, that I'm very skeptical
                > his approach<BR>
                > > >will work. :)<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >3) The "pessimistic" outlook. This
                > is the "technology will<BR>
                > > >make humanity extinct!" point of view
                > expressed by people<BR>
                > > >like Mark Gubrud. And possibly Bill Joy,
                > although I was<BR>
                > > >never sure whether Bill Joy really believes
                > this point of<BR>
                > > >view or whether he was just trying to provoke
                > widespread<BR>
                > > >discussion on the issue. (Which he certainly
                > did in any<BR>
                > > >case). Gubrud takes the moralistic position
                > -- that humans<BR>
                > > >must stop technology because technology will
                > make humanity<BR>
                > > >extinct, and that's morally wrong.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >For my part, I think I lean towards the
                > pessimistic<BR>
                > > >viewpoint simply because I was once a big
                > believer in the<BR>
                > > >"techno-utopian" viewpoint -- the
                > idea that we'll invent<BR>
                > > >technology that will solve humanity's
                > problems. My time at<BR>
                > > >Microsoft disillusioned me of that concept
                > pretty<BR>
                > > >thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may make
                > technology that solves<BR>
                > > >human problems. It's just that that's not
                > really<BR>
                > > >Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps them sell
                > software, but<BR>
                > > >it's the selling of software that they really
                > care about.<BR>
                > > >David Gelernter (from Yale University) has
                > written some<BR>
                > > >stuff about how "technology doesn't
                > solve social problems",<BR>
                > > >how he expected technology to solve social
                > problems and<BR>
                > > >went through a similar (though milder :)
                > disillusionment.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >One of the reasons I have the view that I
                > have is that I<BR>
                > > >now interpret technological development as
                > being part of<BR>
                > > >the same process that drives biological
                > development. And in<BR>
                > > >the biological realm, there is nothing
                > special about the<BR>
                > > >human species -- it is just another species.
                > So I question<BR>
                > > >the argument that John Smart puts fourth,
                > that advanced<BR>
                > > >technology in the future will care about
                > solving human<BR>
                > > >problems. We don't care about other species
                > (we, humans,<BR>
                > > >are causing a mass extinction right now), for
                > the most part<BR>
                > > >-- there are exceptions like Rainforest
                > Action Network and<BR>
                > > >so on. So while the human species
                > unquestionably rules the<BR>
                > > >planet at the moment -- but only at the
                > moment. The process<BR>
                > > >of evolution does not intrinsically favor the
                > human<BR>
                > > >species. So I don't see why future robots
                > with strong AI<BR>
                > > >will care to spend their intelligence solving
                > humanity's<BR>
                > > >problems. On the other hand, I don't agree
                > with Mark Gubrud<BR>
                > > >that extinction is a likely result. I see no
                > evidence that<BR>
                > > >the development of complex species causes the
                > simple ones<BR>
                > > >to go extinct simply because they are simple.
                > Otherwise<BR>
                > > >there would not be microbes and insects and
                > so fourth<BR>
                > > >today. So I would not expect advanced
                > technology to do that<BR>
                > > >either.<BR>
                > > ><BR>
                > > >This reminds me of the brief discussion with
                > Chris Phoenix<BR>
                > > >about uploads, and this gives you some idea
                > of the<BR>
                > > >complexity of the economics behind all this.
                > Chris was<BR>
                > > >saying that "everyone" will be able
                > to upload, because, as<BR>
                > > >technology advances, it gets cheaper, and
                > eventually<BR>
                > > >everyone will be able to afford it. And I was
                > saying, wait<BR>
                > > >a minute, you're looking at only one half of
                > the equation,<BR>
                > > >the buying side. Technology also affects the
                > earning side.<BR>
                > > >If there are computers costing $1000 or $2000
                > that have<BR>
                > > >strong AI -- and can therefore do any job a
                > human can do --<BR>
                > > >will there be any jobs? So to keep up with
                > the machines,<BR>
                > > >everyone has to get cybernetic implants, so
                > their brains<BR>
                > > >can keep up with Moore's Law. And how much
                > does that<BR>
                > > >technology cost? What percentage of the
                > population will be<BR>
                > > >able to afford it? So you see, we're not just
                > talking about<BR>
                > > >how much technology costs to make and sell,
                > but how people<BR>
                > > >will earn the money to buy it -- how these
                > two factors will<BR>
                > > >fit together. That's pretty extremely hard to
                > predict with<BR>
                > > <BR>
                > === message truncated ===<BR>
                > <BR>
                > <BR>
                > __________________________________________________<BR>
                > Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
                > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes<BR>
                > <a
                > href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                > </tt>
                >
                > <br>
                >
                > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                >
                > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                > <td align=center><font size="-1"
                > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                > </tr>
                > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                > <td align=center width=470><table border=0
                > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
                > face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
                >
                href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb
                /S=1705890010:HM/A=1182692/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-
                1736-1039-334
                > " target="_top"><img border="0"
                >
                src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03
                1_4for49p_3.gif"
                > height="250" width="300"></a></td></tr></table></td>
                > </tr>
                > </table>
                >
                > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                >
                >
                > <br>
                > <tt>
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
                > bafuture-unsubscribe@y...<BR>
                > <BR>
                > </tt>
                > <br>
                >
                > <br>
                > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
                > of Service</a>.</tt>
                > </br>
                >
                > </body></html>
                >
                >
                > ___________________________________________________________
                > Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
                > Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
              • markfinnern
                Well J. S. Anderson, More then 4 days of agonizing waiting has passed, but still no reply post from you :-( Looking forward to it, Mark. ...
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well J. S. Anderson,

                  More then 4 days of agonizing waiting has passed, but still no reply
                  post from you :-(

                  Looking forward to it, Mark.


                  --- In bafuture@y..., Joschka Fisher <grabarkowic@y...> wrote:
                  > YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION.
                  > J.S.ANDERSON
                  >
                  >
                  > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> a écrit :
                  > <HR>
                  > <html><body>
                  >
                  >
                  > <tt>
                  > <BR>
                  > Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good does
                  > that do?<BR>
                  > We'll all be smarter and better off if we put our
                  > heads<BR>
                  > together and learn from each other rather than
                  > make<BR>
                  > threats, no?<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Maybe I am just being naive again.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong about,
                  > but<BR>
                  > things seem to check out to me. I said that chip
                  > sales<BR>
                  > were growing since April.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter <BR>
                  > <a
                  > href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?
                  ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for Worldwide<BR>
                  > Semiconductor Industry <BR>
                  > <a
                  > href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?
                  ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a><BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > This is a more recent article:<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Chip sector releases mixed figures<BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.th
                  eregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > I interpret this to mean that the waters are still
                  > choppy.<BR>
                  > Although I suppose you could argue that it's the
                  > beginning<BR>
                  > of another downturn, but I don't expect that.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > As for communications equipment sales, actually I
                  > didn't say<BR>
                  > telecom sales were going back up, (only the
                  > semiconductor<BR>
                  > industry as a whole) and they haven't yet.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > OE Markets - Demand<BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html
                  </a>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > OE component sales, 2001 <BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.html">http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht
                  ml</a><BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999
                  > levels.<BR>
                  > (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic
                  > eqipment.<BR>
                  > Telecom specifically took a bigger hit.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Optical networking's next frontier<BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm">htt
                  p://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a><BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > I said Moore's Law continues in spite of economic
                  > recession.<BR>
                  > Recently:<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Intel Begins Shipping Itanium 2 Processors<BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm
                  ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a>
                  <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Intel Ships The World's First 2 Gigahertz
                  > Microprocessor For<BR>
                  > Mobile PCs <BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm
                  ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a>
                  <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Intel Unveils World's Most Advanced Chip-Making
                  > Process<BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm
                  ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a>
                  <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > And telecom technology is continuing to advance in
                  > spite<BR>
                  > of the recession as well, and a quick look at any
                  > telecom<BR>
                  > equipment vendor web site will show.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Scientists at Bell Labs have used their collective<BR>
                  > multidisciplinary expertise to help design
                  > LambdaXtreme<BR>
                  > Transport, the most advanced long-distance
                  > communications<BR>
                  > system now on the market.<BR>
                  > <a
                  > href="http://www.bell-
                  labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html">http://www.bell-
                  labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html</a>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > JDS Uniphase Announces New Semiconductor Optical
                  > Amplifiers<BR>
                  > <a
                  > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%
                  20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%
                  20Amplifiers">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=24
                  9&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%
                  20Optical%20Amplifiers</a><BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > JDS Uniphase Boosts High-Level Functionality of
                  > RX3<BR>
                  > Series Multichannel Backreflection Meters with Two
                  > New<BR>
                  > Features <BR>
                  > Unique three-laser wavelength testing and 10 mm
                  > InGaAs<BR>
                  > detector provide broader testing capabilities,
                  > reduce<BR>
                  > ownership cost<BR>
                  > <a
                  > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%
                  20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%
                  20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%
                  20Features">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=23
                  1&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%
                  20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%
                  20Two%20New%20Features</a><BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > JDS Uniphase Announces Dramatic Performance
                  > Improvement In Thin<BR>
                  > Film Filters for Wideband Applications<BR>
                  > <a
                  > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%
                  20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%
                  20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%
                  20Applications">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=23
                  3&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%
                  20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%
                  20Applications</a><BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Now what you really want to do is graph out
                  > processor<BR>
                  > performance per dollar over time. For bandwidth,
                  > it's<BR>
                  > harder because there are more variables, but what
                  > you<BR>
                  > want to do is calculate Gb / s / km / dollar for
                  > telecom<BR>
                  > equipment and show that it is an exponential curve
                  > over<BR>
                  > long periods of time. This is the whole essence of
                  > Gilder's<BR>
                  > Law / Huber's Law. I don't have the data to do this
                  > but<BR>
                  > maybe you can find it and calculate it. The price
                  > data<BR>
                  > is important because the calculation is per unit
                  > cost.<BR>
                  > The industry now is focusing more on decreasing
                  > cost<BR>
                  > on the low end than on advancing the high end.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Finally, here is an article about the telecom
                  > meltdown.<BR>
                  > If you think the recession has stopped technology<BR>
                  > advancement, you might have the cause and effect
                  > backwards.<BR>
                  > The author believes that the rapid pace of
                  > technology<BR>
                  > advancement is one of the *causes* of the telecom
                  > meltdown.<BR>
                  > As you might expect, if long-distance phone service
                  > is<BR>
                  > "free", that has severe consequences for the
                  > people who<BR>
                  > build their business on it. (As I mentioned earlier,
                  > <BR>
                  > Nathan Myhrvold predicted in 1993 that long distance
                  > would<BR>
                  > become free.)<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Future not so bright for telecoms<BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm
                  ">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a>
                  <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > Ok, let me have it.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > --- Joseph Anderson
                  > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR>
                  > > Uh....Wayne...<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna give you 7
                  > days to check<BR>
                  > > your facts on this before I, er...<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > Let you have it.<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > j.s.a.<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > --- wayne radinsky spodware@y...
                  > wrote:<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >--- Joseph Anderson
                  > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR>
                  > > >> Yea...and kudos...but<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> If there's room at the bottom....<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> and  aint' nobody buying to
                  > maintain a market...<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> then it's nothing more than nanotech for
                  > "nada" or oh!<BR>
                  > > >> no-profits?<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >I don't see what you are getting at here.
                  > Semiconductor<BR>
                  > > >sales started increasing in April. We're
                  > already into the<BR>
                  > > >next boom cycle. It's pretty weak at this
                  > point, but it<BR>
                  > > >will grow. There are buyers in the market,
                  > and as<BR>
                  > > >technology gets more powerful, there will be
                  > more products<BR>
                  > > >people want to buy.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >> Pretty soon...your local economy is
                  > devastasted and YOU'RE<BR>
                  > > >> at the bottom!<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >I don't see what you are getting at here.
                  > There are many<BR>
                  > > >devastated local economies in the world. This
                  > does not<BR>
                  > > >affect the accelerating pace of technology
                  > development.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >> Technology has several environments it's
                  > responsible for.<BR>
                  > > >> Like it or not.  Biological is
                  > one.  Economic is certainly<BR>
                  > > >> the other.<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> Or do you pour money into spin-doctors
                  > and artificial price<BR>
                  > > >> supports via Enron, Anderson Consulting,
                  > and WorldCom's<BR>
                  > > >> accounting techniques? So...for a while,
                  > no-on will notice?<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >Again, the collapse of Enron, Anderson,
                  > Global Crossing,<BR>
                  > > >WorldCom, etc, does not slow the pace of
                  > technology. This<BR>
                  > > >may seem counterintuitive, but it has no
                  > effect.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >> On the otherhand...if you can convince
                  > people to work for<BR>
                  > > >> next to nothing ( especially you
                  > California High $$ types )<BR>
                  > > >> or are willing to suffer the
                  > consequences of globalization<BR>
                  > > >> where Government interests and Corp
                  > Interest cannot<BR>
                  > > >> co-exist. Then...Have yo' technology!!
                  > ..and more of it! (<BR>
                  > > >> q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> The Trap<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> The Response<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html">http://ww
                  w.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a><BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >Interesting article. Thanks. I'm not sure how
                  > it ties in<BR>
                  > > >with my post. The theme of this article is
                  > "free trade".<BR>
                  > > >What's the connection? That semiconductors
                  > are manufactured<BR>
                  > > >by "free trade"? That technological
                  > advancement has not<BR>
                  > > >brought economic equality between
                  > nations?<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >> Somwhere earlier there was a
                  > "joie-de-vivre" on these<BR>
                  > > >> Salons regarding technology being able
                  > to continue despite<BR>
                  > > >> adversity. " For higher silicon
                  > evolution!"<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> You know like war? I think someone
                  > particularly mentioned<BR>
                  > > >> that "side-track" to
                  > technological progress.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >That was me, yup. But I don't know where you
                  > got the " For<BR>
                  > > >higher silicon evolution!" part. I'm
                  > only saying that, as a<BR>
                  > > >matter of fact, economic recession does not
                  > slow down the<BR>
                  > > >advancement of technology. If you don't
                  > believe me, draw a<BR>
                  > > >graph. Plot out transistor size, or CPU clock
                  > speed, or<BR>
                  > > >whatever, and see whether it goes down during
                  > the current<BR>
                  > > >economic recession.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >You'll see, it doesn't, it maintains its
                  > exponential<BR>
                  > > >trajectory. This is not a
                  > "joie-de-vivre", this is an<BR>
                  > > >empirical fact.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >> I keep remembering a cartoon in the
                  > Village Voice by<BR>
                  > > >> Oliphant, during the week the Neutron
                  > Bomb was announced,<BR>
                  > > >> as a device that did not destroy
                  > buildings. Of course, I<BR>
                  > > >> don't have to tell you and the NYTimes
                  > article never<BR>
                  > > >> said...er um but kills a whoppin' lot of
                  > people with<BR>
                  > > >> high-radiation levels over 3-7
                  > days.  It showed a bunch of<BR>
                  > > >> accountants jumping for joy on their
                  > desks!<BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >><BR>
                  > > >> This is what gets me most.  The
                  > survival instinct when<BR>
                  > > >> assuaged by technology for technology
                  > sake, opinions and<BR>
                  > > >> modern day tech toys...gets overlooked
                  > and in the<BR>
                  > > >> process...over-ridden.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >Quite possibly.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >There seem to be 3 main lines of thought on
                  > this sort of<BR>
                  > > >thing.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >1) The optimistic outlook -- technological
                  > advancement<BR>
                  > > >will, by itself, make everything better. John
                  > Smart is<BR>
                  > > >definitely in this category. He believes
                  > that, as the<BR>
                  > > >technological singularity approaches, that we
                  > will all be<BR>
                  > > >amazed by the speed at which the remaining
                  > human problems<BR>
                  > > >are solved. He has some of the most clever
                  > and unusual<BR>
                  > > >arguments of any of the thinkers I know of,
                  > such as the<BR>
                  > > >idea that as a complex adaptive system
                  > increases in<BR>
                  > > >complexity, it also increases the
                  > concentration on<BR>
                  > > >positive-sum interactions, and decreases in
                  > violence and<BR>
                  > > >other zero-sum or negative-sum interactions.
                  > Ray Kurzweil<BR>
                  > > >sort of goes in this category -- he likes to
                  > talk about how<BR>
                  > > >human lifespan is being extended
                  > exponentially and so<BR>
                  > > >fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges the downside --
                  > he has a<BR>
                  > > >"Dangerous Futures" section on his
                  > website and so on.<BR>
                  > > >So he is not 100% in this category, but I
                  > think that is<BR>
                  > > >the overall theme of his thinking.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >2) The "we can control the outcome"
                  > outlook -- I would  put<BR>
                  > > >Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle,
                  > Christine Peterson,<BR>
                  > > >etc), because Foresight's basic premise is
                  > that if you can<BR>
                  > > >influence the "initial conditions"
                  > of technological<BR>
                  > > >development early in the process, then you
                  > can influence<BR>
                  > > >where the whole trajectory goes and thereby
                  > head the system<BR>
                  > > >off in the direction of a positive outcome. I
                  > would put<BR>
                  > > >Eliezer Yudkowsky in this category as well,
                  > although he<BR>
                  > > >seems to take the view that he personally is
                  > going to<BR>
                  > > >invent strong AI, preprogram it with Asimov
                  > laws, and save<BR>
                  > > >the world (more or less). Of course, you can
                  > probably guess,<BR>
                  > > >by the wording I use, that I'm very skeptical
                  > his approach<BR>
                  > > >will work. :)<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >3) The "pessimistic" outlook. This
                  > is the "technology will<BR>
                  > > >make humanity extinct!" point of view
                  > expressed by people<BR>
                  > > >like Mark Gubrud. And possibly Bill Joy,
                  > although I was<BR>
                  > > >never sure whether Bill Joy really believes
                  > this point of<BR>
                  > > >view or whether he was just trying to provoke
                  > widespread<BR>
                  > > >discussion on the issue. (Which he certainly
                  > did in any<BR>
                  > > >case). Gubrud takes the moralistic position
                  > -- that humans<BR>
                  > > >must stop technology because technology will
                  > make humanity<BR>
                  > > >extinct, and that's morally wrong.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >For my part, I think I lean towards the
                  > pessimistic<BR>
                  > > >viewpoint simply because I was once a big
                  > believer in the<BR>
                  > > >"techno-utopian" viewpoint -- the
                  > idea that we'll invent<BR>
                  > > >technology that will solve humanity's
                  > problems. My time at<BR>
                  > > >Microsoft disillusioned me of that concept
                  > pretty<BR>
                  > > >thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may make
                  > technology that solves<BR>
                  > > >human problems. It's just that that's not
                  > really<BR>
                  > > >Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps them sell
                  > software, but<BR>
                  > > >it's the selling of software that they really
                  > care about.<BR>
                  > > >David Gelernter (from Yale University) has
                  > written some<BR>
                  > > >stuff about how "technology doesn't
                  > solve social problems",<BR>
                  > > >how he expected technology to solve social
                  > problems and<BR>
                  > > >went through a similar (though milder :)
                  > disillusionment.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >One of the reasons I have the view that I
                  > have is that I<BR>
                  > > >now interpret technological development as
                  > being part of<BR>
                  > > >the same process that drives biological
                  > development. And in<BR>
                  > > >the biological realm, there is nothing
                  > special about the<BR>
                  > > >human species -- it is just another species.
                  > So I question<BR>
                  > > >the argument that John Smart puts fourth,
                  > that advanced<BR>
                  > > >technology in the future will care about
                  > solving human<BR>
                  > > >problems. We don't care about other species
                  > (we, humans,<BR>
                  > > >are causing a mass extinction right now), for
                  > the most part<BR>
                  > > >-- there are exceptions like Rainforest
                  > Action Network and<BR>
                  > > >so on. So while the human species
                  > unquestionably rules the<BR>
                  > > >planet at the moment -- but only at the
                  > moment. The process<BR>
                  > > >of evolution does not intrinsically favor the
                  > human<BR>
                  > > >species. So I don't see why future robots
                  > with strong AI<BR>
                  > > >will care to spend their intelligence solving
                  > humanity's<BR>
                  > > >problems. On the other hand, I don't agree
                  > with Mark Gubrud<BR>
                  > > >that extinction is a likely result. I see no
                  > evidence that<BR>
                  > > >the development of complex species causes the
                  > simple ones<BR>
                  > > >to go extinct simply because they are simple.
                  > Otherwise<BR>
                  > > >there would not be microbes and insects and
                  > so fourth<BR>
                  > > >today. So I would not expect advanced
                  > technology to do that<BR>
                  > > >either.<BR>
                  > > ><BR>
                  > > >This reminds me of the brief discussion with
                  > Chris Phoenix<BR>
                  > > >about uploads, and this gives you some idea
                  > of the<BR>
                  > > >complexity of the economics behind all this.
                  > Chris was<BR>
                  > > >saying that "everyone" will be able
                  > to upload, because, as<BR>
                  > > >technology advances, it gets cheaper, and
                  > eventually<BR>
                  > > >everyone will be able to afford it. And I was
                  > saying, wait<BR>
                  > > >a minute, you're looking at only one half of
                  > the equation,<BR>
                  > > >the buying side. Technology also affects the
                  > earning side.<BR>
                  > > >If there are computers costing $1000 or $2000
                  > that have<BR>
                  > > >strong AI -- and can therefore do any job a
                  > human can do --<BR>
                  > > >will there be any jobs? So to keep up with
                  > the machines,<BR>
                  > > >everyone has to get cybernetic implants, so
                  > their brains<BR>
                  > > >can keep up with Moore's Law. And how much
                  > does that<BR>
                  > > >technology cost? What percentage of the
                  > population will be<BR>
                  > > >able to afford it? So you see, we're not just
                  > talking about<BR>
                  > > >how much technology costs to make and sell,
                  > but how people<BR>
                  > > >will earn the money to buy it -- how these
                  > two factors will<BR>
                  > > >fit together. That's pretty extremely hard to
                  > predict with<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > === message truncated ===<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > __________________________________________________<BR>
                  > Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
                  > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes<BR>
                  > <a
                  > href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                  > </tt>
                  >
                  > <br>
                  >
                  > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                  >
                  > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                  > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                  > <td align=center><font size="-1"
                  > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                  > </tr>
                  > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                  > <td align=center width=470><table border=0
                  > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
                  > face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
                  >
                  href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb
                  /S=1705890010:HM/A=1182692/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-
                  1736-1039-334
                  > " target="_top"><img border="0"
                  >
                  src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03
                  1_4for49p_3.gif"
                  > height="250" width="300"></a></td></tr></table></td>
                  > </tr>
                  > </table>
                  >
                  > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                  >
                  >
                  > <br>
                  > <tt>
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
                  > bafuture-unsubscribe@y...<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > </tt>
                  > <br>
                  >
                  > <br>
                  > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                  > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
                  > of Service</a>.</tt>
                  > </br>
                  >
                  > </body></html>
                  >
                  >
                  > ___________________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
                  > Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
                • Joschka Fisher
                  Oops! Sorry... Working on Biochemistry homework. I ve give you the skeleton first, then the detailed facts with references later. Give me about 24 hours.
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Oops!

                    Sorry...

                    Working on Biochemistry homework.

                    I've give you the skeleton first, then the detailed
                    facts with references later.

                    Give me about 24 hours.

                    j.s.anderson

                    (Also.....a...memorabilia introit/quiz!)

                    Most interesting/intriguing....you'll see!)


                    --- markfinnern <markfinnern@...> a écrit :
                    <HR>
                    <html><body>


                    <tt>
                    Well J. S. Anderson,<BR>
                    <BR>
                    More then 4 days of agonizing waiting has passed, but
                    still no reply <BR>
                    post from you :-(<BR>
                    <BR>
                    Looking forward to it, Mark. <BR>
                    <BR>
                    <BR>
                    --- In bafuture@y..., Joschka Fisher
                    <grabarkowic@y...> wrote:<BR>
                    > YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR
                    INFORMATION.<BR>
                    > J.S.ANDERSON <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> a
                    écrit : <BR>
                    > <HR><BR>
                    > <html><body><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <tt><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good
                    does<BR>
                    > that do?<BR><BR>
                    > We'll all be smarter and better off if we put
                    our<BR>
                    > heads<BR><BR>
                    > together and learn from each other rather
                    than<BR>
                    > make<BR><BR>
                    > threats, no?<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Maybe I am just being naive again.<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong
                    about,<BR>
                    > but<BR><BR>
                    > things seem to check out to me. I said that
                    chip<BR>
                    > sales<BR><BR>
                    > were growing since April.<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter
                    <BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > href="<a
                    href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                    ID=235"><a
                    href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a></a><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for
                    Worldwide<BR><BR>
                    > Semiconductor Industry <BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > href="<a
                    href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                    ID=231"><a
                    href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a></a><BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > This is a more recent article:<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Chip sector releases mixed figures<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>"><a
                    href="http://www.th">http://www.th</a><BR>
                    eregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > I interpret this to mean that the waters are
                    still<BR>
                    > choppy.<BR><BR>
                    > Although I suppose you could argue that it's
                    the<BR>
                    > beginning<BR><BR>
                    > of another downturn, but I don't expect
                    that.<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > As for communications equipment sales, actually
                    I<BR>
                    > didn't say<BR><BR>
                    > telecom sales were going back up, (only the<BR>
                    > semiconductor<BR><BR>
                    > industry as a whole) and they haven't
                    yet.<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > OE Markets - Demand<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a>"><a
                    href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a><BR>
                    </a><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > OE component sales, 2001 <BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.html">http://www.oida.org/comprev.html</a>"><a
                    href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht">http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht</a><BR>
                    ml</a><BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999<BR>
                    > levels.<BR><BR>
                    > (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic<BR>
                    > eqipment.<BR><BR>
                    > Telecom specifically took a bigger
                    hit.<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Optical networking's next frontier<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm">http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a>">htt<BR>
                    p://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a><BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > I said Moore's Law continues in spite of
                    economic<BR>
                    > recession.<BR><BR>
                    > Recently:<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Intel Begins Shipping Itanium 2
                    Processors<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a><BR>
                    "><a
                    href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a></a><BR>
                    <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Intel Ships The World's First 2 Gigahertz<BR>
                    > Microprocessor For<BR><BR>
                    > Mobile PCs <BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a><BR>
                    "><a
                    href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a></a><BR>
                    <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Intel Unveils World's Most Advanced
                    Chip-Making<BR>
                    > Process<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a><BR>
                    "><a
                    href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a></a><BR>
                    <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > And telecom technology is continuing to advance
                    in<BR>
                    > spite<BR><BR>
                    > of the recession as well, and a quick look at
                    any<BR>
                    > telecom<BR><BR>
                    > equipment vendor web site will
                    show.<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Scientists at Bell Labs have used their
                    collective<BR><BR>
                    > multidisciplinary expertise to help design<BR>
                    > LambdaXtreme<BR><BR>
                    > Transport, the most advanced long-distance<BR>
                    > communications<BR><BR>
                    > system now on the market.<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > href="<a
                    href="http://www.bell-">http://www.bell-</a><BR>
                    labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html"><a
                    href="http://www.bell-">http://www.bell-</a><BR>
                    labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html</a><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > JDS Uniphase Announces New Semiconductor
                    Optical<BR>
                    > Amplifiers<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > href="<a
                    href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                    CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                    20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%<BR>
                    20Amplifiers"><a
                    href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                    CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=24<BR>
                    9&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%<BR>
                    20Optical%20Amplifiers</a><BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > JDS Uniphase Boosts High-Level Functionality
                    of<BR>
                    > RX3<BR><BR>
                    > Series Multichannel Backreflection Meters with
                    Two<BR>
                    > New<BR><BR>
                    > Features <BR><BR>
                    > Unique three-laser wavelength testing and 10
                    mm<BR>
                    > InGaAs<BR><BR>
                    > detector provide broader testing
                    capabilities,<BR>
                    > reduce<BR><BR>
                    > ownership cost<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > href="<a
                    href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                    CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                    20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%<BR>
                    20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%<BR>
                    20Features"><a
                    href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                    CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=23<BR>
                    1&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%<BR>
                    20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%<BR>
                    20Two%20New%20Features</a><BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > JDS Uniphase Announces Dramatic Performance<BR>
                    > Improvement In Thin<BR><BR>
                    > Film Filters for Wideband
                    Applications<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > href="<a
                    href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                    CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                    20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%<BR>
                    20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%<BR>
                    20Applications"><a
                    href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                    CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=23<BR>
                    3&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%<BR>
                    20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%<BR>
                    20Applications</a><BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Now what you really want to do is graph out<BR>
                    > processor<BR><BR>
                    > performance per dollar over time. For
                    bandwidth,<BR>
                    > it's<BR><BR>
                    > harder because there are more variables, but
                    what<BR>
                    > you<BR><BR>
                    > want to do is calculate Gb / s / km / dollar
                    for<BR>
                    > telecom<BR><BR>
                    > equipment and show that it is an exponential
                    curve<BR>
                    > over<BR><BR>
                    > long periods of time. This is the whole essence
                    of<BR>
                    > Gilder's<BR><BR>
                    > Law / Huber's Law. I don't have the data to do
                    this<BR>
                    > but<BR><BR>
                    > maybe you can find it and calculate it. The
                    price<BR>
                    > data<BR><BR>
                    > is important because the calculation is per
                    unit<BR>
                    > cost.<BR><BR>
                    > The industry now is focusing more on
                    decreasing<BR>
                    > cost<BR><BR>
                    > on the low end than on advancing the high
                    end.<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Finally, here is an article about the telecom<BR>
                    > meltdown.<BR><BR>
                    > If you think the recession has stopped
                    technology<BR><BR>
                    > advancement, you might have the cause and
                    effect<BR>
                    > backwards.<BR><BR>
                    > The author believes that the rapid pace of<BR>
                    > technology<BR><BR>
                    > advancement is one of the *causes* of the
                    telecom<BR>
                    > meltdown.<BR><BR>
                    > As you might expect, if long-distance phone
                    service<BR>
                    > is<BR><BR>
                    > &quot;free&quot;, that has severe
                    consequences for the<BR>
                    > people who<BR><BR>
                    > build their business on it. (As I mentioned
                    earlier,<BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Nathan Myhrvold predicted in 1993 that long
                    distance<BR>
                    > would<BR><BR>
                    > become free.)<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Future not so bright for telecoms<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a><BR>
                    "><a
                    href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a></a><BR>
                    <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > Ok, let me have it.<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > --- Joseph Anderson<BR>
                    > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; Uh....Wayne...<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; <BR><BR>
                    > &gt; Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna
                    give you 7<BR>
                    > days to check<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; your facts on this before I,
                    er...<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; <BR><BR>
                    > &gt; Let you have it.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; <BR><BR>
                    > &gt; j.s.a.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; <BR><BR>
                    > &gt; --- wayne radinsky spodware@y...<BR>
                    > wrote:<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;--- Joseph Anderson<BR>
                    > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; Yea...and
                    kudos...but<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; If there's room at the
                    bottom....<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; and&nbsp; aint'
                    nobody buying to<BR>
                    > maintain a market...<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; then it's nothing more
                    than nanotech for<BR>
                    > &quot;nada&quot; or oh!<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;
                    no-profits?<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;I don't see what you are getting
                    at here.<BR>
                    > Semiconductor<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;sales started increasing in
                    April. We're<BR>
                    > already into the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;next boom cycle. It's pretty
                    weak at this<BR>
                    > point, but it<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;will grow. There are buyers in
                    the market,<BR>
                    > and as<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;technology gets more powerful,
                    there will be<BR>
                    > more products<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;people want to
                    buy.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; Pretty soon...your
                    local economy is<BR>
                    > devastasted and YOU'RE<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; at the
                    bottom!<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;I don't see what you are getting
                    at here.<BR>
                    > There are many<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;devastated local economies in
                    the world. This<BR>
                    > does not<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;affect the accelerating pace of
                    technology<BR>
                    > development.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; Technology has several
                    environments it's<BR>
                    > responsible for.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; Like it or
                    not.&nbsp; Biological is<BR>
                    > one.&nbsp; Economic is
                    certainly<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; the
                    other.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; Or do you pour money
                    into spin-doctors<BR>
                    > and artificial price<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; supports via Enron,
                    Anderson Consulting,<BR>
                    > and WorldCom's<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; accounting techniques?
                    So...for a while,<BR>
                    > no-on will notice?<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;Again, the collapse of Enron,
                    Anderson,<BR>
                    > Global Crossing,<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;WorldCom, etc, does not slow the
                    pace of<BR>
                    > technology. This<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;may seem counterintuitive, but
                    it has no<BR>
                    > effect.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; On the otherhand...if
                    you can convince<BR>
                    > people to work for<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; next to nothing (
                    especially you<BR>
                    > California High $$ types )<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; or are willing to
                    suffer the<BR>
                    > consequences of globalization<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; where Government
                    interests and Corp<BR>
                    > Interest cannot<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; co-exist. Then...Have
                    yo' technology!!<BR>
                    > ..and more of it! (<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; q.v. Sir John
                    Goldsmith's books:<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; The Trap<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; The
                    Response<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; <a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html">http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a>"><a
                    href="http://ww">http://ww</a><BR>
                    w.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a><BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;Interesting article. Thanks. I'm
                    not sure how<BR>
                    > it ties in<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;with my post. The theme of this
                    article is<BR>
                    > &quot;free trade&quot;.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;What's the connection? That
                    semiconductors<BR>
                    > are manufactured<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;by &quot;free
                    trade&quot;? That technological<BR>
                    > advancement has not<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;brought economic equality
                    between<BR>
                    > nations?<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; Somwhere earlier there
                    was a<BR>
                    > &quot;joie-de-vivre&quot; on
                    these<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; Salons regarding
                    technology being able<BR>
                    > to continue despite<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; adversity. &quot;
                    For higher silicon<BR>
                    > evolution!&quot;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; You know like war? I
                    think someone<BR>
                    > particularly mentioned<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; that
                    &quot;side-track&quot; to<BR>
                    > technological progress.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;That was me, yup. But I don't
                    know where you<BR>
                    > got the &quot; For<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;higher silicon
                    evolution!&quot; part. I'm<BR>
                    > only saying that, as a<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;matter of fact, economic
                    recession does not<BR>
                    > slow down the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;advancement of technology. If
                    you don't<BR>
                    > believe me, draw a<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;graph. Plot out transistor size,
                    or CPU clock<BR>
                    > speed, or<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;whatever, and see whether it
                    goes down during<BR>
                    > the current<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;economic
                    recession.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;You'll see, it doesn't, it
                    maintains its<BR>
                    > exponential<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;trajectory. This is not a<BR>
                    > &quot;joie-de-vivre&quot;, this is
                    an<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;empirical fact.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; I keep remembering a
                    cartoon in the<BR>
                    > Village Voice by<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; Oliphant, during the
                    week the Neutron<BR>
                    > Bomb was announced,<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; as a device that did
                    not destroy<BR>
                    > buildings. Of course, I<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; don't have to tell you
                    and the NYTimes<BR>
                    > article never<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; said...er um but kills
                    a whoppin' lot of<BR>
                    > people with<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; high-radiation levels
                    over 3-7<BR>
                    > days.&nbsp; It showed a bunch
                    of<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; accountants jumping for
                    joy on their<BR>
                    > desks!<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; This is what gets me
                    most.&nbsp; The<BR>
                    > survival instinct when<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; assuaged by technology
                    for technology<BR>
                    > sake, opinions and<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt; modern day tech
                    toys...gets overlooked<BR>
                    > and in the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&gt;
                    process...over-ridden.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;Quite possibly.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;There seem to be 3 main lines of
                    thought on<BR>
                    > this sort of<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;thing.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;1) The optimistic outlook --
                    technological<BR>
                    > advancement<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;will, by itself, make everything
                    better. John<BR>
                    > Smart is<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;definitely in this category. He
                    believes<BR>
                    > that, as the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;technological singularity
                    approaches, that we<BR>
                    > will all be<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;amazed by the speed at which the
                    remaining<BR>
                    > human problems<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;are solved. He has some of the
                    most clever<BR>
                    > and unusual<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;arguments of any of the thinkers
                    I know of,<BR>
                    > such as the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;idea that as a complex adaptive
                    system<BR>
                    > increases in<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;complexity, it also increases
                    the<BR>
                    > concentration on<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;positive-sum interactions, and
                    decreases in<BR>
                    > violence and<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;other zero-sum or negative-sum
                    interactions.<BR>
                    > Ray Kurzweil<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;sort of goes in this category --
                    he likes to<BR>
                    > talk about how<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;human lifespan is being
                    extended<BR>
                    > exponentially and so<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges
                    the downside --<BR>
                    > he has a<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;&quot;Dangerous
                    Futures&quot; section on his<BR>
                    > website and so on.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;So he is not 100% in this
                    category, but I<BR>
                    > think that is<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;the overall theme of his
                    thinking.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;2) The &quot;we can control
                    the outcome&quot;<BR>
                    > outlook -- I would&nbsp; put<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph
                    Merkle,<BR>
                    > Christine Peterson,<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;etc), because Foresight's basic
                    premise is<BR>
                    > that if you can<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;influence the &quot;initial
                    conditions&quot;<BR>
                    > of technological<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;development early in the
                    process, then you<BR>
                    > can influence<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;where the whole trajectory goes
                    and thereby<BR>
                    > head the system<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;off in the direction of a
                    positive outcome. I<BR>
                    > would put<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky in this
                    category as well,<BR>
                    > although he<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;seems to take the view that he
                    personally is<BR>
                    > going to<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;invent strong AI, preprogram it
                    with Asimov<BR>
                    > laws, and save<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;the world (more or less). Of
                    course, you can<BR>
                    > probably guess,<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;by the wording I use, that I'm
                    very skeptical<BR>
                    > his approach<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;will work. :)<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;3) The
                    &quot;pessimistic&quot; outlook. This<BR>
                    > is the &quot;technology will<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;make humanity extinct!&quot;
                    point of view<BR>
                    > expressed by people<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;like Mark Gubrud. And possibly
                    Bill Joy,<BR>
                    > although I was<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;never sure whether Bill Joy
                    really believes<BR>
                    > this point of<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;view or whether he was just
                    trying to provoke<BR>
                    > widespread<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;discussion on the issue. (Which
                    he certainly<BR>
                    > did in any<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;case). Gubrud takes the
                    moralistic position<BR>
                    > -- that humans<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;must stop technology because
                    technology will<BR>
                    > make humanity<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;extinct, and that's morally
                    wrong.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;For my part, I think I lean
                    towards the<BR>
                    > pessimistic<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;viewpoint simply because I was
                    once a big<BR>
                    > believer in the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt;
                    &gt;&quot;techno-utopian&quot; viewpoint
                    -- the<BR>
                    > idea that we'll invent<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;technology that will solve
                    humanity's<BR>
                    > problems. My time at<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;Microsoft disillusioned me of
                    that concept<BR>
                    > pretty<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may
                    make<BR>
                    > technology that solves<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;human problems. It's just that
                    that's not<BR>
                    > really<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps
                    them sell<BR>
                    > software, but<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;it's the selling of software
                    that they really<BR>
                    > care about.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;David Gelernter (from Yale
                    University) has<BR>
                    > written some<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;stuff about how
                    &quot;technology doesn't<BR>
                    > solve social problems&quot;,<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;how he expected technology to
                    solve social<BR>
                    > problems and<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;went through a similar (though
                    milder :)<BR>
                    > disillusionment.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;One of the reasons I have the
                    view that I<BR>
                    > have is that I<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;now interpret technological
                    development as<BR>
                    > being part of<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;the same process that drives
                    biological<BR>
                    > development. And in<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;the biological realm, there is
                    nothing<BR>
                    > special about the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;human species -- it is just
                    another species.<BR>
                    > So I question<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;the argument that John Smart
                    puts fourth,<BR>
                    > that advanced<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;technology in the future will
                    care about<BR>
                    > solving human<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;problems. We don't care about
                    other species<BR>
                    > (we, humans,<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;are causing a mass extinction
                    right now), for<BR>
                    > the most part<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;-- there are exceptions like
                    Rainforest<BR>
                    > Action Network and<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;so on. So while the human
                    species<BR>
                    > unquestionably rules the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;planet at the moment -- but only
                    at the<BR>
                    > moment. The process<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;of evolution does not
                    intrinsically favor the<BR>
                    > human<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;species. So I don't see why
                    future robots<BR>
                    > with strong AI<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;will care to spend their
                    intelligence solving<BR>
                    > humanity's<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;problems. On the other hand, I
                    don't agree<BR>
                    > with Mark Gubrud<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;that extinction is a likely
                    result. I see no<BR>
                    > evidence that<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;the development of complex
                    species causes the<BR>
                    > simple ones<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;to go extinct simply because
                    they are simple.<BR>
                    > Otherwise<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;there would not be microbes and
                    insects and<BR>
                    > so fourth<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;today. So I would not expect
                    advanced<BR>
                    > technology to do that<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;either.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;This reminds me of the brief
                    discussion with<BR>
                    > Chris Phoenix<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;about uploads, and this gives
                    you some idea<BR>
                    > of the<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;complexity of the economics
                    behind all this.<BR>
                    > Chris was<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;saying that
                    &quot;everyone&quot; will be able<BR>
                    > to upload, because, as<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;technology advances, it gets
                    cheaper, and<BR>
                    > eventually<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;everyone will be able to afford
                    it. And I was<BR>
                    > saying, wait<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;a minute, you're looking at only
                    one half of<BR>
                    > the equation,<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;the buying side. Technology also
                    affects the<BR>
                    > earning side.<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;If there are computers costing
                    $1000 or $2000<BR>
                    > that have<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;strong AI -- and can therefore
                    do any job a<BR>
                    > human can do --<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;will there be any jobs? So to
                    keep up with<BR>
                    > the machines,<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;everyone has to get cybernetic
                    implants, so<BR>
                    > their brains<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;can keep up with Moore's Law.
                    And how much<BR>
                    > does that<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;technology cost? What percentage
                    of the<BR>
                    > population will be<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;able to afford it? So you see,
                    we're not just<BR>
                    > talking about<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;how much technology costs to
                    make and sell,<BR>
                    > but how people<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;will earn the money to buy it --
                    how these<BR>
                    > two factors will<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; &gt;fit together. That's pretty
                    extremely hard to<BR>
                    > predict with<BR><BR>
                    > &gt; <BR><BR>
                    > === message truncated ===<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    >
                    __________________________________________________<BR><BR>
                    > Do You Yahoo!?<BR><BR>
                    > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock
                    quotes<BR><BR>
                    > <a<BR>
                    > href="<a
                    href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a>"><a
                    href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a></a><BR><BR>
                    > </tt><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <br><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <table border=0 cellspacing=0
                    cellpadding=2><BR>
                    > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC><BR>
                    > <td align=center><font
                    size="-1"<BR>
                    > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
                    Sponsor</b></font></td><BR>
                    > </tr><BR>
                    > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF><BR>
                    > <td align=center width=470><table
                    border=0<BR>
                    > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td
                    align=center><font<BR>
                    > face=arial
                    size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    href="<a
                    href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb">http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb</a><BR>
                    /S=1705890010:HM/A=1182692/R=0/*<a
                    href="http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-">http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-</a><BR>
                    1736-1039-334<BR>
                    > " target="_top"><img
                    border="0"<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    src="<a
                    href="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03">http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03</a><BR>
                    1_4for49p_3.gif"<BR>
                    > height="250"
                    width="300"></a></td></tr></table></td><BR>
                    > </tr><BR>
                    > </table><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <br><BR>
                    > <tt><BR>
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
                    to:<BR><BR>
                    > bafuture-unsubscribe@y...<BR><BR>
                    > <BR><BR>
                    > </tt><BR>
                    > <br><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <br><BR>
                    > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    the <a<BR>
                    > href="<a
                    href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>">Yahoo!
                    Terms<BR>
                    > of Service</a>.</tt><BR>
                    > </br><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > </body></html><BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    >
                    ___________________________________________________________<BR>
                    > Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite
                    et en français !<BR>
                    > Yahoo! Mail : <a
                    href="http://fr.mail.yahoo.com">http://fr.mail.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                    <BR>
                    </tt>

                    <br>

                    <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                    <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                    <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                    <td align=center><font size="-1"
                    color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                    </tr>
                    <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                    <td align=center width=470><table border=0
                    cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
                    face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
                    href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2336363.3766536.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705890010:HM/A=1189560/R=0/*http://www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/10/"
                    target=_top><img
                    src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/bm/bmg/strongartist_12_300x250.gif"
                    alt="" width="300" height="250"
                    border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
                    </tr>
                    </table>

                    <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


                    <br>
                    <tt>
                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
                    bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                    <BR>
                    </tt>
                    <br>

                    <br>
                    <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                    href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
                    of Service</a>.</tt>
                    </br>

                    </body></html>


                    ___________________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
                    Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
                  • Joschka Fisher
                    Ok...this is a skeleton/outline of my objections to your assessment of the chip industry and is perceived cyclical comeback. It s also a criticism of Yea
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 5, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ok...this is a skeleton/outline of my objections to
                      your assessment of the chip industry and is perceived
                      cyclical comeback.

                      It's also a criticism of "Yea technology improves but
                      who gets to use it", from the Economics point of view.

                      Do remember that the Japanese just beat the sh** out
                      of us in building the world's fastest computer using
                      10+ year old technology. ( Still looking for that
                      article!)

                      "er was it you or Wayne Radinsky?" this is submitted
                      to?

                      Either way a lot of data and I've got one Economist
                      article I'm trying to get but I can't afford the
                      $60.00 subscription so I have to break-into the
                      Stanford Business School computers to get the article.
                      Sorry but it should take about 24 hours to get it..and
                      a few other items. "Heee Hee".

                      I'll fill in the rest within the next couple days
                      since this is time consuming, but damned interesting.


                      Anderson Evaluations: The Problem with Technology for
                      Technology Sake and argument against Wayne's
                      assessment!

                      SIA organization, the source of your data and the
                      reporting systems, in general!
                      1. My general disklike/distrust of SIA reports and
                      good reasons why:
                      2. Reporting alternatives and their “accuracy” over

                      past 3 years!

                      Current effort/trends of countries to build
                      semiconductor/foundry plants. ( is Rally round the
                      Maypole, a good idea?)
                      1. Source of talent
                      2. Salaries
                      3. Saturation and market glut

                      The costs of semiconductor and foundry construction or
                      retooling
                      1. Defining semiconductor vs. foundry industries
                      2. Why Foundries were only recently included in the
                      semiconductor industry.

                      Record of projected profit margins vs.actual over past
                      3 years

                      1. By different reporting agencies (including SIA)
                      2. Markets the Semi/Foundry serve

                      Demand markets behaviour for such technology in the
                      current and future arena

                      1. So who’s buying "said new technology" and what
                      are they being used for?
                      2. Profitability & Market thresholds of these “end-
                      user”-industries over past 3 years.

                      The high-tech pollution problem: assessment and costs
                      to the industry.

                      Evaluation of Semi/Foundry under the John Goldsmith
                      Economics

                      1. The economics of Zu Schleuderpreisen and its
                      problems around the world in the Semi/Foundry
                      industry!

                      Why Technology for Technology sake, is a near
                      aliteration of s', as in: is seriously short-sigted,
                      silly and the end of evolution!


                      --- markfinnern <markfinnern@...> a écrit :
                      <HR>
                      <html><body>


                      <tt>
                      Well J. S. Anderson,<BR>
                      <BR>
                      More then 4 days of agonizing waiting has passed, but
                      still no reply <BR>
                      post from you :-(<BR>
                      <BR>
                      Looking forward to it, Mark. <BR>
                      <BR>
                      <BR>
                      --- In bafuture@y..., Joschka Fisher
                      <grabarkowic@y...> wrote:<BR>
                      > YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR
                      INFORMATION.<BR>
                      > J.S.ANDERSON <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> a
                      écrit : <BR>
                      > <HR><BR>
                      > <html><body><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <tt><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good
                      does<BR>
                      > that do?<BR><BR>
                      > We'll all be smarter and better off if we put
                      our<BR>
                      > heads<BR><BR>
                      > together and learn from each other rather
                      than<BR>
                      > make<BR><BR>
                      > threats, no?<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Maybe I am just being naive again.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong
                      about,<BR>
                      > but<BR><BR>
                      > things seem to check out to me. I said that
                      chip<BR>
                      > sales<BR><BR>
                      > were growing since April.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter
                      <BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > href="<a
                      href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                      ID=235"><a
                      href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a></a><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for
                      Worldwide<BR><BR>
                      > Semiconductor Industry <BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > href="<a
                      href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                      ID=231"><a
                      href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a></a><BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > This is a more recent article:<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Chip sector releases mixed figures<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>"><a
                      href="http://www.th">http://www.th</a><BR>
                      eregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > I interpret this to mean that the waters are
                      still<BR>
                      > choppy.<BR><BR>
                      > Although I suppose you could argue that it's
                      the<BR>
                      > beginning<BR><BR>
                      > of another downturn, but I don't expect
                      that.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > As for communications equipment sales, actually
                      I<BR>
                      > didn't say<BR><BR>
                      > telecom sales were going back up, (only the<BR>
                      > semiconductor<BR><BR>
                      > industry as a whole) and they haven't
                      yet.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > OE Markets - Demand<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a>"><a
                      href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a><BR>
                      </a><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > OE component sales, 2001 <BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.html">http://www.oida.org/comprev.html</a>"><a
                      href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht">http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht</a><BR>
                      ml</a><BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999<BR>
                      > levels.<BR><BR>
                      > (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic<BR>
                      > eqipment.<BR><BR>
                      > Telecom specifically took a bigger
                      hit.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Optical networking's next frontier<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm">http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a>">htt<BR>
                      p://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a><BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > I said Moore's Law continues in spite of
                      economic<BR>
                      > recession.<BR><BR>
                      > Recently:<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Intel Begins Shipping Itanium 2
                      Processors<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a><BR>
                      "><a
                      href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a></a><BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Intel Ships The World's First 2 Gigahertz<BR>
                      > Microprocessor For<BR><BR>
                      > Mobile PCs <BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a><BR>
                      "><a
                      href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a></a><BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Intel Unveils World's Most Advanced
                      Chip-Making<BR>
                      > Process<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a><BR>
                      "><a
                      href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a></a><BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > And telecom technology is continuing to advance
                      in<BR>
                      > spite<BR><BR>
                      > of the recession as well, and a quick look at
                      any<BR>
                      > telecom<BR><BR>
                      > equipment vendor web site will
                      show.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Scientists at Bell Labs have used their
                      collective<BR><BR>
                      > multidisciplinary expertise to help design<BR>
                      > LambdaXtreme<BR><BR>
                      > Transport, the most advanced long-distance<BR>
                      > communications<BR><BR>
                      > system now on the market.<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > href="<a
                      href="http://www.bell-">http://www.bell-</a><BR>
                      labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html"><a
                      href="http://www.bell-">http://www.bell-</a><BR>
                      labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html</a><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > JDS Uniphase Announces New Semiconductor
                      Optical<BR>
                      > Amplifiers<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > href="<a
                      href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                      CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                      20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%<BR>
                      20Amplifiers"><a
                      href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                      CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=24<BR>
                      9&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%<BR>
                      20Optical%20Amplifiers</a><BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > JDS Uniphase Boosts High-Level Functionality
                      of<BR>
                      > RX3<BR><BR>
                      > Series Multichannel Backreflection Meters with
                      Two<BR>
                      > New<BR><BR>
                      > Features <BR><BR>
                      > Unique three-laser wavelength testing and 10
                      mm<BR>
                      > InGaAs<BR><BR>
                      > detector provide broader testing
                      capabilities,<BR>
                      > reduce<BR><BR>
                      > ownership cost<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > href="<a
                      href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                      CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                      20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%<BR>
                      20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%<BR>
                      20Features"><a
                      href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                      CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=23<BR>
                      1&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%<BR>
                      20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%<BR>
                      20Two%20New%20Features</a><BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > JDS Uniphase Announces Dramatic Performance<BR>
                      > Improvement In Thin<BR><BR>
                      > Film Filters for Wideband
                      Applications<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > href="<a
                      href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                      CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                      20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%<BR>
                      20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%<BR>
                      20Applications"><a
                      href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                      CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=23<BR>
                      3&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%<BR>
                      20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%<BR>
                      20Applications</a><BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Now what you really want to do is graph out<BR>
                      > processor<BR><BR>
                      > performance per dollar over time. For
                      bandwidth,<BR>
                      > it's<BR><BR>
                      > harder because there are more variables, but
                      what<BR>
                      > you<BR><BR>
                      > want to do is calculate Gb / s / km / dollar
                      for<BR>
                      > telecom<BR><BR>
                      > equipment and show that it is an exponential
                      curve<BR>
                      > over<BR><BR>
                      > long periods of time. This is the whole essence
                      of<BR>
                      > Gilder's<BR><BR>
                      > Law / Huber's Law. I don't have the data to do
                      this<BR>
                      > but<BR><BR>
                      > maybe you can find it and calculate it. The
                      price<BR>
                      > data<BR><BR>
                      > is important because the calculation is per
                      unit<BR>
                      > cost.<BR><BR>
                      > The industry now is focusing more on
                      decreasing<BR>
                      > cost<BR><BR>
                      > on the low end than on advancing the high
                      end.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Finally, here is an article about the telecom<BR>
                      > meltdown.<BR><BR>
                      > If you think the recession has stopped
                      technology<BR><BR>
                      > advancement, you might have the cause and
                      effect<BR>
                      > backwards.<BR><BR>
                      > The author believes that the rapid pace of<BR>
                      > technology<BR><BR>
                      > advancement is one of the *causes* of the
                      telecom<BR>
                      > meltdown.<BR><BR>
                      > As you might expect, if long-distance phone
                      service<BR>
                      > is<BR><BR>
                      > &quot;free&quot;, that has severe
                      consequences for the<BR>
                      > people who<BR><BR>
                      > build their business on it. (As I mentioned
                      earlier,<BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Nathan Myhrvold predicted in 1993 that long
                      distance<BR>
                      > would<BR><BR>
                      > become free.)<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Future not so bright for telecoms<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a><BR>
                      "><a
                      href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a></a><BR>
                      <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > Ok, let me have it.<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > --- Joseph Anderson<BR>
                      > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; Uh....Wayne...<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; <BR><BR>
                      > &gt; Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna
                      give you 7<BR>
                      > days to check<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; your facts on this before I,
                      er...<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; <BR><BR>
                      > &gt; Let you have it.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; <BR><BR>
                      > &gt; j.s.a.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; <BR><BR>
                      > &gt; --- wayne radinsky spodware@y...<BR>
                      > wrote:<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;--- Joseph Anderson<BR>
                      > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; Yea...and
                      kudos...but<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; If there's room at the
                      bottom....<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; and&nbsp; aint'
                      nobody buying to<BR>
                      > maintain a market...<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; then it's nothing more
                      than nanotech for<BR>
                      > &quot;nada&quot; or oh!<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;
                      no-profits?<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;I don't see what you are getting
                      at here.<BR>
                      > Semiconductor<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;sales started increasing in
                      April. We're<BR>
                      > already into the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;next boom cycle. It's pretty
                      weak at this<BR>
                      > point, but it<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;will grow. There are buyers in
                      the market,<BR>
                      > and as<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;technology gets more powerful,
                      there will be<BR>
                      > more products<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;people want to
                      buy.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; Pretty soon...your
                      local economy is<BR>
                      > devastasted and YOU'RE<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; at the
                      bottom!<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;I don't see what you are getting
                      at here.<BR>
                      > There are many<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;devastated local economies in
                      the world. This<BR>
                      > does not<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;affect the accelerating pace of
                      technology<BR>
                      > development.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; Technology has several
                      environments it's<BR>
                      > responsible for.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; Like it or
                      not.&nbsp; Biological is<BR>
                      > one.&nbsp; Economic is
                      certainly<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; the
                      other.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; Or do you pour money
                      into spin-doctors<BR>
                      > and artificial price<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; supports via Enron,
                      Anderson Consulting,<BR>
                      > and WorldCom's<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; accounting techniques?
                      So...for a while,<BR>
                      > no-on will notice?<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;Again, the collapse of Enron,
                      Anderson,<BR>
                      > Global Crossing,<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;WorldCom, etc, does not slow the
                      pace of<BR>
                      > technology. This<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;may seem counterintuitive, but
                      it has no<BR>
                      > effect.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; On the otherhand...if
                      you can convince<BR>
                      > people to work for<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; next to nothing (
                      especially you<BR>
                      > California High $$ types )<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; or are willing to
                      suffer the<BR>
                      > consequences of globalization<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; where Government
                      interests and Corp<BR>
                      > Interest cannot<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; co-exist. Then...Have
                      yo' technology!!<BR>
                      > ..and more of it! (<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; q.v. Sir John
                      Goldsmith's books:<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; The Trap<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; The
                      Response<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; <a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html">http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a>"><a
                      href="http://ww">http://ww</a><BR>
                      w.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a><BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;Interesting article. Thanks. I'm
                      not sure how<BR>
                      > it ties in<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;with my post. The theme of this
                      article is<BR>
                      > &quot;free trade&quot;.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;What's the connection? That
                      semiconductors<BR>
                      > are manufactured<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;by &quot;free
                      trade&quot;? That technological<BR>
                      > advancement has not<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;brought economic equality
                      between<BR>
                      > nations?<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; Somwhere earlier there
                      was a<BR>
                      > &quot;joie-de-vivre&quot; on
                      these<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; Salons regarding
                      technology being able<BR>
                      > to continue despite<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; adversity. &quot;
                      For higher silicon<BR>
                      > evolution!&quot;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; You know like war? I
                      think someone<BR>
                      > particularly mentioned<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; that
                      &quot;side-track&quot; to<BR>
                      > technological progress.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;That was me, yup. But I don't
                      know where you<BR>
                      > got the &quot; For<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;higher silicon
                      evolution!&quot; part. I'm<BR>
                      > only saying that, as a<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;matter of fact, economic
                      recession does not<BR>
                      > slow down the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;advancement of technology. If
                      you don't<BR>
                      > believe me, draw a<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;graph. Plot out transistor size,
                      or CPU clock<BR>
                      > speed, or<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;whatever, and see whether it
                      goes down during<BR>
                      > the current<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;economic
                      recession.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;You'll see, it doesn't, it
                      maintains its<BR>
                      > exponential<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;trajectory. This is not a<BR>
                      > &quot;joie-de-vivre&quot;, this is
                      an<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;empirical fact.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; I keep remembering a
                      cartoon in the<BR>
                      > Village Voice by<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; Oliphant, during the
                      week the Neutron<BR>
                      > Bomb was announced,<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; as a device that did
                      not destroy<BR>
                      > buildings. Of course, I<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; don't have to tell you
                      and the NYTimes<BR>
                      > article never<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; said...er um but kills
                      a whoppin' lot of<BR>
                      > people with<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; high-radiation levels
                      over 3-7<BR>
                      > days.&nbsp; It showed a bunch
                      of<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; accountants jumping for
                      joy on their<BR>
                      > desks!<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; This is what gets me
                      most.&nbsp; The<BR>
                      > survival instinct when<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; assuaged by technology
                      for technology<BR>
                      > sake, opinions and<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt; modern day tech
                      toys...gets overlooked<BR>
                      > and in the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&gt;
                      process...over-ridden.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;Quite possibly.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;There seem to be 3 main lines of
                      thought on<BR>
                      > this sort of<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;thing.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;1) The optimistic outlook --
                      technological<BR>
                      > advancement<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;will, by itself, make everything
                      better. John<BR>
                      > Smart is<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;definitely in this category. He
                      believes<BR>
                      > that, as the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;technological singularity
                      approaches, that we<BR>
                      > will all be<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;amazed by the speed at which the
                      remaining<BR>
                      > human problems<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;are solved. He has some of the
                      most clever<BR>
                      > and unusual<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;arguments of any of the thinkers
                      I know of,<BR>
                      > such as the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;idea that as a complex adaptive
                      system<BR>
                      > increases in<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;complexity, it also increases
                      the<BR>
                      > concentration on<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;positive-sum interactions, and
                      decreases in<BR>
                      > violence and<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;other zero-sum or negative-sum
                      interactions.<BR>
                      > Ray Kurzweil<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;sort of goes in this category --
                      he likes to<BR>
                      > talk about how<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;human lifespan is being
                      extended<BR>
                      > exponentially and so<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges
                      the downside --<BR>
                      > he has a<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;&quot;Dangerous
                      Futures&quot; section on his<BR>
                      > website and so on.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;So he is not 100% in this
                      category, but I<BR>
                      > think that is<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;the overall theme of his
                      thinking.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;2) The &quot;we can control
                      the outcome&quot;<BR>
                      > outlook -- I would&nbsp; put<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph
                      Merkle,<BR>
                      > Christine Peterson,<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;etc), because Foresight's basic
                      premise is<BR>
                      > that if you can<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;influence the &quot;initial
                      conditions&quot;<BR>
                      > of technological<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;development early in the
                      process, then you<BR>
                      > can influence<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;where the whole trajectory goes
                      and thereby<BR>
                      > head the system<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;off in the direction of a
                      positive outcome. I<BR>
                      > would put<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky in this
                      category as well,<BR>
                      > although he<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;seems to take the view that he
                      personally is<BR>
                      > going to<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;invent strong AI, preprogram it
                      with Asimov<BR>
                      > laws, and save<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;the world (more or less). Of
                      course, you can<BR>
                      > probably guess,<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;by the wording I use, that I'm
                      very skeptical<BR>
                      > his approach<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;will work. :)<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;3) The
                      &quot;pessimistic&quot; outlook. This<BR>
                      > is the &quot;technology will<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;make humanity extinct!&quot;
                      point of view<BR>
                      > expressed by people<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;like Mark Gubrud. And possibly
                      Bill Joy,<BR>
                      > although I was<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;never sure whether Bill Joy
                      really believes<BR>
                      > this point of<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;view or whether he was just
                      trying to provoke<BR>
                      > widespread<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;discussion on the issue. (Which
                      he certainly<BR>
                      > did in any<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;case). Gubrud takes the
                      moralistic position<BR>
                      > -- that humans<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;must stop technology because
                      technology will<BR>
                      > make humanity<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;extinct, and that's morally
                      wrong.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;For my part, I think I lean
                      towards the<BR>
                      > pessimistic<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;viewpoint simply because I was
                      once a big<BR>
                      > believer in the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt;
                      &gt;&quot;techno-utopian&quot; viewpoint
                      -- the<BR>
                      > idea that we'll invent<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;technology that will solve
                      humanity's<BR>
                      > problems. My time at<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;Microsoft disillusioned me of
                      that concept<BR>
                      > pretty<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may
                      make<BR>
                      > technology that solves<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;human problems. It's just that
                      that's not<BR>
                      > really<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps
                      them sell<BR>
                      > software, but<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;it's the selling of software
                      that they really<BR>
                      > care about.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;David Gelernter (from Yale
                      University) has<BR>
                      > written some<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;stuff about how
                      &quot;technology doesn't<BR>
                      > solve social problems&quot;,<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;how he expected technology to
                      solve social<BR>
                      > problems and<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;went through a similar (though
                      milder :)<BR>
                      > disillusionment.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;One of the reasons I have the
                      view that I<BR>
                      > have is that I<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;now interpret technological
                      development as<BR>
                      > being part of<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;the same process that drives
                      biological<BR>
                      > development. And in<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;the biological realm, there is
                      nothing<BR>
                      > special about the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;human species -- it is just
                      another species.<BR>
                      > So I question<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;the argument that John Smart
                      puts fourth,<BR>
                      > that advanced<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;technology in the future will
                      care about<BR>
                      > solving human<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;problems. We don't care about
                      other species<BR>
                      > (we, humans,<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;are causing a mass extinction
                      right now), for<BR>
                      > the most part<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;-- there are exceptions like
                      Rainforest<BR>
                      > Action Network and<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;so on. So while the human
                      species<BR>
                      > unquestionably rules the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;planet at the moment -- but only
                      at the<BR>
                      > moment. The process<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;of evolution does not
                      intrinsically favor the<BR>
                      > human<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;species. So I don't see why
                      future robots<BR>
                      > with strong AI<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;will care to spend their
                      intelligence solving<BR>
                      > humanity's<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;problems. On the other hand, I
                      don't agree<BR>
                      > with Mark Gubrud<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;that extinction is a likely
                      result. I see no<BR>
                      > evidence that<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;the development of complex
                      species causes the<BR>
                      > simple ones<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;to go extinct simply because
                      they are simple.<BR>
                      > Otherwise<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;there would not be microbes and
                      insects and<BR>
                      > so fourth<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;today. So I would not expect
                      advanced<BR>
                      > technology to do that<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;either.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;This reminds me of the brief
                      discussion with<BR>
                      > Chris Phoenix<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;about uploads, and this gives
                      you some idea<BR>
                      > of the<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;complexity of the economics
                      behind all this.<BR>
                      > Chris was<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;saying that
                      &quot;everyone&quot; will be able<BR>
                      > to upload, because, as<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;technology advances, it gets
                      cheaper, and<BR>
                      > eventually<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;everyone will be able to afford
                      it. And I was<BR>
                      > saying, wait<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;a minute, you're looking at only
                      one half of<BR>
                      > the equation,<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;the buying side. Technology also
                      affects the<BR>
                      > earning side.<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;If there are computers costing
                      $1000 or $2000<BR>
                      > that have<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;strong AI -- and can therefore
                      do any job a<BR>
                      > human can do --<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;will there be any jobs? So to
                      keep up with<BR>
                      > the machines,<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;everyone has to get cybernetic
                      implants, so<BR>
                      > their brains<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;can keep up with Moore's Law.
                      And how much<BR>
                      > does that<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;technology cost? What percentage
                      of the<BR>
                      > population will be<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;able to afford it? So you see,
                      we're not just<BR>
                      > talking about<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;how much technology costs to
                      make and sell,<BR>
                      > but how people<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;will earn the money to buy it --
                      how these<BR>
                      > two factors will<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; &gt;fit together. That's pretty
                      extremely hard to<BR>
                      > predict with<BR><BR>
                      > &gt; <BR><BR>
                      > === message truncated ===<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      >
                      __________________________________________________<BR><BR>
                      > Do You Yahoo!?<BR><BR>
                      > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock
                      quotes<BR><BR>
                      > <a<BR>
                      > href="<a
                      href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a>"><a
                      href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a></a><BR><BR>
                      > </tt><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <br><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <table border=0 cellspacing=0
                      cellpadding=2><BR>
                      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC><BR>
                      > <td align=center><font
                      size="-1"<BR>
                      > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
                      Sponsor</b></font></td><BR>
                      > </tr><BR>
                      > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF><BR>
                      > <td align=center width=470><table
                      border=0<BR>
                      > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td
                      align=center><font<BR>
                      > face=arial
                      size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      href="<a
                      href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb">http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb</a><BR>
                      /S=1705890010:HM/A=1182692/R=0/*<a
                      href="http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-">http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-</a><BR>
                      1736-1039-334<BR>
                      > " target="_top"><img
                      border="0"<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      src="<a
                      href="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03">http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03</a><BR>
                      1_4for49p_3.gif"<BR>
                      > height="250"
                      width="300"></a></td></tr></table></td><BR>
                      > </tr><BR>
                      > </table><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <br><BR>
                      > <tt><BR>
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
                      to:<BR><BR>
                      > bafuture-unsubscribe@y...<BR><BR>
                      > <BR><BR>
                      > </tt><BR>
                      > <br><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <br><BR>
                      > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      the <a<BR>
                      > href="<a
                      href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>">Yahoo!
                      Terms<BR>
                      > of Service</a>.</tt><BR>
                      > </br><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > </body></html><BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > <BR>
                      >
                      ___________________________________________________________<BR>
                      > Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite
                      et en français !<BR>
                      > Yahoo! Mail : <a
                      href="http://fr.mail.yahoo.com">http://fr.mail.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                      <BR>
                      </tt>

                      <br>

                      <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                      <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                      <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                      <td align=center><font size="-1"
                      color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
                      </tr>
                      <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                      <td align=center width=470><table border=0
                      cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
                      face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
                      href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=229441.2336363.3766536.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705890010:HM/A=1189560/R=0/*http://www.bmgmusic.com/acq/ee/q6/enroll/mhn/10/"
                      target=_top><img
                      src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/bm/bmg/strongartist_12_300x250.gif"
                      alt="" width="300" height="250"
                      border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
                      </tr>
                      </table>

                      <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


                      <br>
                      <tt>
                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
                      bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                      <BR>
                      </tt>
                      <br>

                      <br>
                      <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                      href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
                      of Service</a>.</tt>
                      </br>

                      </body></html>


                      ___________________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
                      Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
                    • Joschka Fisher
                      Hey! Any man makes it to Foreign Secretary in Germany, with footage available of him some years earlier not only at a protest but beating the *&^#& out of a
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 9, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hey!

                        Any man makes it to Foreign Secretary in Germany, with
                        footage available of him some years earlier not only
                        at a protest but "beating the *&^#& out of a
                        policman....gets my vote!!!



                        --- markfinnern <markfinnern@...> a écrit :
                        <HR>
                        <html><body>


                        <tt>
                        Uhu, all in caps, 'VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION'<BR>
                        All your base are belong to us, or what? <BR>
                        (See:<a
                        href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4143466,00.html)">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4143466,00.html)</a><BR>
                        <BR>
                        Well I felt compelled to check my passport, just to
                        'verify my <BR>
                        infordentity'. Still the same old, same old, which is
                        reaffirming. <BR>
                        <BR>
                        There is some nice anticipation building up here, the
                        expectations <BR>
                        are high, hope your post lives up to the hype. <BR>
                        <BR>
                        Darn, another 4 days. <BR>
                        Can't wait, Mark. <BR>
                        P.S. Like your fake Joschka Fischer email identity. Is
                        that in homage <BR>
                        to him? <BR>
                        <BR>
                        --- In bafuture@y..., Joschka Fisher
                        <grabarkowic@y...> wrote:<BR>
                        > YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR
                        INFORMATION.<BR>
                        > J.S.ANDERSON <BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> a
                        écrit : <BR>
                        > <HR><BR>
                        > <html><body><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <tt><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good
                        does<BR>
                        > that do?<BR><BR>
                        > We'll all be smarter and better off if we put
                        our<BR>
                        > heads<BR><BR>
                        > together and learn from each other rather
                        than<BR>
                        > make<BR><BR>
                        > threats, no?<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Maybe I am just being naive again.<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong
                        about,<BR>
                        > but<BR><BR>
                        > things seem to check out to me. I said that
                        chip<BR>
                        > sales<BR><BR>
                        > were growing since April.<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter
                        <BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > href="<a
                        href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                        ID=235"><a
                        href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a></a><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for
                        Worldwide<BR><BR>
                        > Semiconductor Industry <BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > href="<a
                        href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                        ID=231"><a
                        href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a></a><BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > This is a more recent article:<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Chip sector releases mixed figures<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>"><a
                        href="http://www.th">http://www.th</a><BR>
                        eregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > I interpret this to mean that the waters are
                        still<BR>
                        > choppy.<BR><BR>
                        > Although I suppose you could argue that it's
                        the<BR>
                        > beginning<BR><BR>
                        > of another downturn, but I don't expect
                        that.<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > As for communications equipment sales, actually
                        I<BR>
                        > didn't say<BR><BR>
                        > telecom sales were going back up, (only the<BR>
                        > semiconductor<BR><BR>
                        > industry as a whole) and they haven't
                        yet.<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > OE Markets - Demand<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a>"><a
                        href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a><BR>
                        </a><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > OE component sales, 2001 <BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.html">http://www.oida.org/comprev.html</a>"><a
                        href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht">http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht</a><BR>
                        ml</a><BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999<BR>
                        > levels.<BR><BR>
                        > (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic<BR>
                        > eqipment.<BR><BR>
                        > Telecom specifically took a bigger
                        hit.<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Optical networking's next frontier<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm">http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a>">htt<BR>
                        p://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a><BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > I said Moore's Law continues in spite of
                        economic<BR>
                        > recession.<BR><BR>
                        > Recently:<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Intel Begins Shipping Itanium 2
                        Processors<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a><BR>
                        "><a
                        href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a></a><BR>
                        <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Intel Ships The World's First 2 Gigahertz<BR>
                        > Microprocessor For<BR><BR>
                        > Mobile PCs <BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a><BR>
                        "><a
                        href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a></a><BR>
                        <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Intel Unveils World's Most Advanced
                        Chip-Making<BR>
                        > Process<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a><BR>
                        "><a
                        href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a></a><BR>
                        <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > And telecom technology is continuing to advance
                        in<BR>
                        > spite<BR><BR>
                        > of the recession as well, and a quick look at
                        any<BR>
                        > telecom<BR><BR>
                        > equipment vendor web site will
                        show.<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Scientists at Bell Labs have used their
                        collective<BR><BR>
                        > multidisciplinary expertise to help design<BR>
                        > LambdaXtreme<BR><BR>
                        > Transport, the most advanced long-distance<BR>
                        > communications<BR><BR>
                        > system now on the market.<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > href="<a
                        href="http://www.bell-">http://www.bell-</a><BR>
                        labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html"><a
                        href="http://www.bell-">http://www.bell-</a><BR>
                        labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html</a><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > JDS Uniphase Announces New Semiconductor
                        Optical<BR>
                        > Amplifiers<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > href="<a
                        href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                        CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                        20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%<BR>
                        20Amplifiers"><a
                        href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                        CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=24<BR>
                        9&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%<BR>
                        20Optical%20Amplifiers</a><BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > JDS Uniphase Boosts High-Level Functionality
                        of<BR>
                        > RX3<BR><BR>
                        > Series Multichannel Backreflection Meters with
                        Two<BR>
                        > New<BR><BR>
                        > Features <BR><BR>
                        > Unique three-laser wavelength testing and 10
                        mm<BR>
                        > InGaAs<BR><BR>
                        > detector provide broader testing
                        capabilities,<BR>
                        > reduce<BR><BR>
                        > ownership cost<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > href="<a
                        href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                        CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                        20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%<BR>
                        20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%<BR>
                        20Features"><a
                        href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                        CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=23<BR>
                        1&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%<BR>
                        20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%<BR>
                        20Two%20New%20Features</a><BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > JDS Uniphase Announces Dramatic Performance<BR>
                        > Improvement In Thin<BR><BR>
                        > Film Filters for Wideband
                        Applications<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > href="<a
                        href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                        CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%<BR>
                        20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%<BR>
                        20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%<BR>
                        20Applications"><a
                        href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?</a><BR>
                        CID=3&amp;NAVCID=3&amp;DSP=PressRelease&amp;ACT=Display&amp;PressID=23<BR>
                        3&amp;PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%<BR>
                        20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%<BR>
                        20Applications</a><BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Now what you really want to do is graph out<BR>
                        > processor<BR><BR>
                        > performance per dollar over time. For
                        bandwidth,<BR>
                        > it's<BR><BR>
                        > harder because there are more variables, but
                        what<BR>
                        > you<BR><BR>
                        > want to do is calculate Gb / s / km / dollar
                        for<BR>
                        > telecom<BR><BR>
                        > equipment and show that it is an exponential
                        curve<BR>
                        > over<BR><BR>
                        > long periods of time. This is the whole essence
                        of<BR>
                        > Gilder's<BR><BR>
                        > Law / Huber's Law. I don't have the data to do
                        this<BR>
                        > but<BR><BR>
                        > maybe you can find it and calculate it. The
                        price<BR>
                        > data<BR><BR>
                        > is important because the calculation is per
                        unit<BR>
                        > cost.<BR><BR>
                        > The industry now is focusing more on
                        decreasing<BR>
                        > cost<BR><BR>
                        > on the low end than on advancing the high
                        end.<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Finally, here is an article about the telecom<BR>
                        > meltdown.<BR><BR>
                        > If you think the recession has stopped
                        technology<BR><BR>
                        > advancement, you might have the cause and
                        effect<BR>
                        > backwards.<BR><BR>
                        > The author believes that the rapid pace of<BR>
                        > technology<BR><BR>
                        > advancement is one of the *causes* of the
                        telecom<BR>
                        > meltdown.<BR><BR>
                        > As you might expect, if long-distance phone
                        service<BR>
                        > is<BR><BR>
                        > &quot;free&quot;, that has severe
                        consequences for the<BR>
                        > people who<BR><BR>
                        > build their business on it. (As I mentioned
                        earlier,<BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Nathan Myhrvold predicted in 1993 that long
                        distance<BR>
                        > would<BR><BR>
                        > become free.)<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Future not so bright for telecoms<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a><BR>
                        "><a
                        href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a></a><BR>
                        <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > Ok, let me have it.<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > --- Joseph Anderson<BR>
                        > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; Uh....Wayne...<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; <BR><BR>
                        > &gt; Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna
                        give you 7<BR>
                        > days to check<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; your facts on this before I,
                        er...<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; <BR><BR>
                        > &gt; Let you have it.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; <BR><BR>
                        > &gt; j.s.a.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; <BR><BR>
                        > &gt; --- wayne radinsky spodware@y...<BR>
                        > wrote:<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;--- Joseph Anderson<BR>
                        > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; Yea...and
                        kudos...but<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; If there's room at the
                        bottom....<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; and&nbsp; aint'
                        nobody buying to<BR>
                        > maintain a market...<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; then it's nothing more
                        than nanotech for<BR>
                        > &quot;nada&quot; or oh!<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;
                        no-profits?<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;I don't see what you are getting
                        at here.<BR>
                        > Semiconductor<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;sales started increasing in
                        April. We're<BR>
                        > already into the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;next boom cycle. It's pretty
                        weak at this<BR>
                        > point, but it<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;will grow. There are buyers in
                        the market,<BR>
                        > and as<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;technology gets more powerful,
                        there will be<BR>
                        > more products<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;people want to
                        buy.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; Pretty soon...your
                        local economy is<BR>
                        > devastasted and YOU'RE<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; at the
                        bottom!<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;I don't see what you are getting
                        at here.<BR>
                        > There are many<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;devastated local economies in
                        the world. This<BR>
                        > does not<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;affect the accelerating pace of
                        technology<BR>
                        > development.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; Technology has several
                        environments it's<BR>
                        > responsible for.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; Like it or
                        not.&nbsp; Biological is<BR>
                        > one.&nbsp; Economic is
                        certainly<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; the
                        other.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; Or do you pour money
                        into spin-doctors<BR>
                        > and artificial price<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; supports via Enron,
                        Anderson Consulting,<BR>
                        > and WorldCom's<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; accounting techniques?
                        So...for a while,<BR>
                        > no-on will notice?<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;Again, the collapse of Enron,
                        Anderson,<BR>
                        > Global Crossing,<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;WorldCom, etc, does not slow the
                        pace of<BR>
                        > technology. This<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;may seem counterintuitive, but
                        it has no<BR>
                        > effect.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; On the otherhand...if
                        you can convince<BR>
                        > people to work for<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; next to nothing (
                        especially you<BR>
                        > California High $$ types )<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; or are willing to
                        suffer the<BR>
                        > consequences of globalization<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; where Government
                        interests and Corp<BR>
                        > Interest cannot<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; co-exist. Then...Have
                        yo' technology!!<BR>
                        > ..and more of it! (<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; q.v. Sir John
                        Goldsmith's books:<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; The Trap<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; The
                        Response<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; <a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html">http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a>"><a
                        href="http://ww">http://ww</a><BR>
                        w.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a><BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;Interesting article. Thanks. I'm
                        not sure how<BR>
                        > it ties in<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;with my post. The theme of this
                        article is<BR>
                        > &quot;free trade&quot;.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;What's the connection? That
                        semiconductors<BR>
                        > are manufactured<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;by &quot;free
                        trade&quot;? That technological<BR>
                        > advancement has not<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;brought economic equality
                        between<BR>
                        > nations?<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; Somwhere earlier there
                        was a<BR>
                        > &quot;joie-de-vivre&quot; on
                        these<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; Salons regarding
                        technology being able<BR>
                        > to continue despite<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; adversity. &quot;
                        For higher silicon<BR>
                        > evolution!&quot;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; You know like war? I
                        think someone<BR>
                        > particularly mentioned<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; that
                        &quot;side-track&quot; to<BR>
                        > technological progress.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;That was me, yup. But I don't
                        know where you<BR>
                        > got the &quot; For<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;higher silicon
                        evolution!&quot; part. I'm<BR>
                        > only saying that, as a<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;matter of fact, economic
                        recession does not<BR>
                        > slow down the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;advancement of technology. If
                        you don't<BR>
                        > believe me, draw a<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;graph. Plot out transistor size,
                        or CPU clock<BR>
                        > speed, or<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;whatever, and see whether it
                        goes down during<BR>
                        > the current<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;economic
                        recession.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;You'll see, it doesn't, it
                        maintains its<BR>
                        > exponential<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;trajectory. This is not a<BR>
                        > &quot;joie-de-vivre&quot;, this is
                        an<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;empirical fact.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; I keep remembering a
                        cartoon in the<BR>
                        > Village Voice by<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; Oliphant, during the
                        week the Neutron<BR>
                        > Bomb was announced,<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; as a device that did
                        not destroy<BR>
                        > buildings. Of course, I<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; don't have to tell you
                        and the NYTimes<BR>
                        > article never<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; said...er um but kills
                        a whoppin' lot of<BR>
                        > people with<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; high-radiation levels
                        over 3-7<BR>
                        > days.&nbsp; It showed a bunch
                        of<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; accountants jumping for
                        joy on their<BR>
                        > desks!<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; This is what gets me
                        most.&nbsp; The<BR>
                        > survival instinct when<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; assuaged by technology
                        for technology<BR>
                        > sake, opinions and<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt; modern day tech
                        toys...gets overlooked<BR>
                        > and in the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&gt;
                        process...over-ridden.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;Quite possibly.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;There seem to be 3 main lines of
                        thought on<BR>
                        > this sort of<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;thing.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;1) The optimistic outlook --
                        technological<BR>
                        > advancement<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;will, by itself, make everything
                        better. John<BR>
                        > Smart is<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;definitely in this category. He
                        believes<BR>
                        > that, as the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;technological singularity
                        approaches, that we<BR>
                        > will all be<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;amazed by the speed at which the
                        remaining<BR>
                        > human problems<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;are solved. He has some of the
                        most clever<BR>
                        > and unusual<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;arguments of any of the thinkers
                        I know of,<BR>
                        > such as the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;idea that as a complex adaptive
                        system<BR>
                        > increases in<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;complexity, it also increases
                        the<BR>
                        > concentration on<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;positive-sum interactions, and
                        decreases in<BR>
                        > violence and<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;other zero-sum or negative-sum
                        interactions.<BR>
                        > Ray Kurzweil<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;sort of goes in this category --
                        he likes to<BR>
                        > talk about how<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;human lifespan is being
                        extended<BR>
                        > exponentially and so<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges
                        the downside --<BR>
                        > he has a<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;&quot;Dangerous
                        Futures&quot; section on his<BR>
                        > website and so on.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;So he is not 100% in this
                        category, but I<BR>
                        > think that is<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;the overall theme of his
                        thinking.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;2) The &quot;we can control
                        the outcome&quot;<BR>
                        > outlook -- I would&nbsp; put<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph
                        Merkle,<BR>
                        > Christine Peterson,<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;etc), because Foresight's basic
                        premise is<BR>
                        > that if you can<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;influence the &quot;initial
                        conditions&quot;<BR>
                        > of technological<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;development early in the
                        process, then you<BR>
                        > can influence<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;where the whole trajectory goes
                        and thereby<BR>
                        > head the system<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;off in the direction of a
                        positive outcome. I<BR>
                        > would put<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;Eliezer Yudkowsky in this
                        category as well,<BR>
                        > although he<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;seems to take the view that he
                        personally is<BR>
                        > going to<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;invent strong AI, preprogram it
                        with Asimov<BR>
                        > laws, and save<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;the world (more or less). Of
                        course, you can<BR>
                        > probably guess,<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;by the wording I use, that I'm
                        very skeptical<BR>
                        > his approach<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;will work. :)<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;3) The
                        &quot;pessimistic&quot; outlook. This<BR>
                        > is the &quot;technology will<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;make humanity extinct!&quot;
                        point of view<BR>
                        > expressed by people<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;like Mark Gubrud. And possibly
                        Bill Joy,<BR>
                        > although I was<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;never sure whether Bill Joy
                        really believes<BR>
                        > this point of<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;view or whether he was just
                        trying to provoke<BR>
                        > widespread<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;discussion on the issue. (Which
                        he certainly<BR>
                        > did in any<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;case). Gubrud takes the
                        moralistic position<BR>
                        > -- that humans<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;must stop technology because
                        technology will<BR>
                        > make humanity<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;extinct, and that's morally
                        wrong.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;For my part, I think I lean
                        towards the<BR>
                        > pessimistic<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;viewpoint simply because I was
                        once a big<BR>
                        > believer in the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt;
                        &gt;&quot;techno-utopian&quot; viewpoint
                        -- the<BR>
                        > idea that we'll invent<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;technology that will solve
                        humanity's<BR>
                        > problems. My time at<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;Microsoft disillusioned me of
                        that concept<BR>
                        > pretty<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may
                        make<BR>
                        > technology that solves<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;human problems. It's just that
                        that's not<BR>
                        > really<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps
                        them sell<BR>
                        > software, but<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;it's the selling of software
                        that they really<BR>
                        > care about.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;David Gelernter (from Yale
                        University) has<BR>
                        > written some<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;stuff about how
                        &quot;technology doesn't<BR>
                        > solve social problems&quot;,<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;how he expected technology to
                        solve social<BR>
                        > problems and<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;went through a similar (though
                        milder :)<BR>
                        > disillusionment.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;One of the reasons I have the
                        view that I<BR>
                        > have is that I<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;now interpret technological
                        development as<BR>
                        > being part of<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;the same process that drives
                        biological<BR>
                        > development. And in<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;the biological realm, there is
                        nothing<BR>
                        > special about the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;human species -- it is just
                        another species.<BR>
                        > So I question<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;the argument that John Smart
                        puts fourth,<BR>
                        > that advanced<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;technology in the future will
                        care about<BR>
                        > solving human<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;problems. We don't care about
                        other species<BR>
                        > (we, humans,<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;are causing a mass extinction
                        right now), for<BR>
                        > the most part<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;-- there are exceptions like
                        Rainforest<BR>
                        > Action Network and<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;so on. So while the human
                        species<BR>
                        > unquestionably rules the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;planet at the moment -- but only
                        at the<BR>
                        > moment. The process<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;of evolution does not
                        intrinsically favor the<BR>
                        > human<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;species. So I don't see why
                        future robots<BR>
                        > with strong AI<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;will care to spend their
                        intelligence solving<BR>
                        > humanity's<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;problems. On the other hand, I
                        don't agree<BR>
                        > with Mark Gubrud<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;that extinction is a likely
                        result. I see no<BR>
                        > evidence that<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;the development of complex
                        species causes the<BR>
                        > simple ones<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;to go extinct simply because
                        they are simple.<BR>
                        > Otherwise<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;there would not be microbes and
                        insects and<BR>
                        > so fourth<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;today. So I would not expect
                        advanced<BR>
                        > technology to do that<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;either.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;This reminds me of the brief
                        discussion with<BR>
                        > Chris Phoenix<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;about uploads, and this gives
                        you some idea<BR>
                        > of the<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;complexity of the economics
                        behind all this.<BR>
                        > Chris was<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;saying that
                        &quot;everyone&quot; will be able<BR>
                        > to upload, because, as<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;technology advances, it gets
                        cheaper, and<BR>
                        > eventually<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;everyone will be able to afford
                        it. And I was<BR>
                        > saying, wait<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;a minute, you're looking at only
                        one half of<BR>
                        > the equation,<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;the buying side. Technology also
                        affects the<BR>
                        > earning side.<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;If there are computers costing
                        $1000 or $2000<BR>
                        > that have<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;strong AI -- and can therefore
                        do any job a<BR>
                        > human can do --<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;will there be any jobs? So to
                        keep up with<BR>
                        > the machines,<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;everyone has to get cybernetic
                        implants, so<BR>
                        > their brains<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;can keep up with Moore's Law.
                        And how much<BR>
                        > does that<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;technology cost? What percentage
                        of the<BR>
                        > population will be<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;able to afford it? So you see,
                        we're not just<BR>
                        > talking about<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;how much technology costs to
                        make and sell,<BR>
                        > but how people<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;will earn the money to buy it --
                        how these<BR>
                        > two factors will<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; &gt;fit together. That's pretty
                        extremely hard to<BR>
                        > predict with<BR><BR>
                        > &gt; <BR><BR>
                        > === message truncated ===<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        >
                        __________________________________________________<BR><BR>
                        > Do You Yahoo!?<BR><BR>
                        > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock
                        quotes<BR><BR>
                        > <a<BR>
                        > href="<a
                        href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a>"><a
                        href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a></a><BR><BR>
                        > </tt><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <br><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <table border=0 cellspacing=0
                        cellpadding=2><BR>
                        > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC><BR>
                        > <td align=center><font
                        size="-1"<BR>
                        > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
                        Sponsor</b></font></td><BR>
                        > </tr><BR>
                        > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF><BR>
                        > <td align=center width=470><table
                        border=0<BR>
                        > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td
                        align=center><font<BR>
                        > face=arial
                        size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        href="<a
                        href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb">http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb</a><BR>
                        /S=1705890010:HM/A=1182692/R=0/*<a
                        href="http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-">http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-</a><BR>
                        1736-1039-334<BR>
                        > " target="_top"><img
                        border="0"<BR>
                        > <BR>
                        src="<a
                        href="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03">http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03</a><BR>
                        1_4for49p_3.gif"<BR>
                        > height="250"
                        width="300"></a></td></tr></table></td><BR>
                        > </tr><BR>
                        > </table><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <br><BR>
                        > <tt><BR>
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
                        to:<BR><BR>
                        > bafuture-unsubscribe@y...<BR><BR>
                        > <BR><BR>
                        > </tt><BR>
                        > <br><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <br><BR>
                        > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        the <a<BR>
                        > href="<a
                        href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>">Yahoo!
                        Terms<BR>
                        > of Service</a>.</tt><BR>
                        > </br><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > </body></html><BR>
                        > <BR>
                        > <BR>
                        >
                        ___________________________________________________________<BR>
                        > Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite
                        et en français !<BR>
                        > Yahoo! Mail : <a
                        href="http://fr.mail.yahoo.com">http://fr.mail.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                        <BR>
                        </tt>


                        <br>
                        <tt>
                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
                        bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                        <BR>
                        </tt>
                        <br>

                        <br>
                        <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                        href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
                        of Service</a>.</tt>
                        </br>

                        </body></html>


                        ___________________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
                        Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
                      • wayne radinsky
                        By the way, I m still waiting the fleshed-out response. This looks to be interesting. ...
                        Message 11 of 17 , Sep 18, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          By the way, I'm still waiting the fleshed-out response.
                          This looks to be interesting.

                          --- Joschka Fisher <grabarkowic@...> wrote:
                          > Ok...this is a skeleton/outline of my objections to
                          > your assessment of the chip industry and is perceived
                          > cyclical comeback.
                          >
                          > It's also a criticism of "Yea technology improves but
                          > who gets to use it", from the Economics point of view.
                          >
                          > Do remember that the Japanese just beat the sh** out
                          > of us in building the world's fastest computer using
                          > 10+ year old technology. ( Still looking for that
                          > article!)
                          >
                          > "er was it you or Wayne Radinsky?" this is submitted
                          > to?
                          >
                          > Either way a lot of data and I've got one Economist
                          > article I'm trying to get but I can't afford the
                          > $60.00 subscription so I have to break-into the
                          > Stanford Business School computers to get the article.
                          > Sorry but it should take about 24 hours to get it..and
                          > a few other items. "Heee Hee".
                          >
                          > I'll fill in the rest within the next couple days
                          > since this is time consuming, but damned interesting.
                          >
                          >
                          > Anderson Evaluations: The Problem with Technology for
                          > Technology Sake and argument against Wayne's
                          > assessment!
                          >
                          > SIA organization, the source of your data and the
                          > reporting systems, in general!
                          > 1. My general disklike/distrust of SIA reports and
                          > good reasons why:
                          > 2. Reporting alternatives and their �accuracy� over
                          >
                          > past 3 years!
                          >
                          > Current effort/trends of countries to build
                          > semiconductor/foundry plants. ( is Rally round the
                          > Maypole, a good idea?)
                          > 1. Source of talent
                          > 2. Salaries
                          > 3. Saturation and market glut
                          >
                          > The costs of semiconductor and foundry construction or
                          > retooling
                          > 1. Defining semiconductor vs. foundry industries
                          > 2. Why Foundries were only recently included in the
                          > semiconductor industry.
                          >
                          > Record of projected profit margins vs.actual over past
                          > 3 years
                          >
                          > 1. By different reporting agencies (including SIA)
                          > 2. Markets the Semi/Foundry serve
                          >
                          > Demand markets behaviour for such technology in the
                          > current and future arena
                          >
                          > 1. So who�s buying "said new technology" and what
                          > are they being used for?
                          > 2. Profitability & Market thresholds of these �end-
                          > user�-industries over past 3 years.
                          >
                          > The high-tech pollution problem: assessment and costs
                          > to the industry.
                          >
                          > Evaluation of Semi/Foundry under the John Goldsmith
                          > Economics
                          >
                          > 1. The economics of Zu Schleuderpreisen and its
                          > problems around the world in the Semi/Foundry
                          > industry!
                          >
                          > Why Technology for Technology sake, is a near
                          > aliteration of s', as in: is seriously short-sigted,
                          > silly and the end of evolution!
                          >
                          >
                          > --- markfinnern <markfinnern@...> a �crit�:
                          > <HR>
                          > <html><body>
                          >
                          >
                          > <tt>
                          > Well J. S. Anderson,<BR>
                          > <BR>
                          > More then 4 days of agonizing waiting has passed, but
                          > still no reply <BR>
                          > post from you :-(<BR>
                          > <BR>
                          > Looking forward to it, Mark. <BR>
                          > <BR>
                          > <BR>
                          > --- In bafuture@y..., Joschka Fisher
                          > <grabarkowic@y...> wrote:<BR>
                          > > YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR
                          > INFORMATION.<BR>
                          > > J.S.ANDERSON <BR>
                          > > <BR>
                          > > <BR>
                          > > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> a
                          > �crit�: <BR>
                          > > <HR><BR>
                          > > <html><body><BR>
                          > > <BR>
                          > > <BR>
                          > > <tt><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good
                          > does<BR>
                          > > that do?<BR><BR>
                          > > We'll all be smarter and better off if we put
                          > our<BR>
                          > > heads<BR><BR>
                          > > together and learn from each other rather
                          > than<BR>
                          > > make<BR><BR>
                          > > threats, no?<BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > Maybe I am just being naive again.<BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong
                          > about,<BR>
                          > > but<BR><BR>
                          > > things seem to check out to me. I said that
                          > chip<BR>
                          > > sales<BR><BR>
                          > > were growing since April.<BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter
                          > <BR><BR>
                          > > <a<BR>
                          > > href="<a
                          >
                          href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                          > ID=235"><a
                          >
                          href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a></a><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for
                          > Worldwide<BR><BR>
                          > > Semiconductor Industry <BR><BR>
                          > > <a<BR>
                          > > href="<a
                          >
                          href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                          > ID=231"><a
                          >
                          href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a></a><BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > This is a more recent article:<BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > Chip sector releases mixed figures<BR><BR>
                          > > <a<BR>
                          > > <BR>
                          > href="<a
                          >
                          href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>"><a
                          > href="http://www.th">http://www.th</a><BR>
                          > eregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > I interpret this to mean that the waters are
                          > still<BR>
                          > > choppy.<BR><BR>
                          > > Although I suppose you could argue that it's
                          > the<BR>
                          > > beginning<BR><BR>
                          > > of another downturn, but I don't expect
                          > that.<BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > As for communications equipment sales, actually
                          > I<BR>
                          > > didn't say<BR><BR>
                          > > telecom sales were going back up, (only the<BR>
                          > > semiconductor<BR><BR>
                          > > industry as a whole) and they haven't
                          > yet.<BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > OE Markets - Demand<BR><BR>
                          > > <a<BR>
                          > > <BR>
                          > href="<a
                          >
                          href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a>"><a
                          >
                          href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html</a><BR>
                          > </a><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > OE component sales, 2001 <BR><BR>
                          > > <a<BR>
                          > > <BR>
                          > href="<a
                          >
                          href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.html">http://www.oida.org/comprev.html</a>"><a
                          >
                          href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht">http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht</a><BR>
                          > ml</a><BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          > > The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999<BR>
                          > > levels.<BR><BR>
                          > > (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic<BR>
                          > > eqipment.<BR><BR>
                          > > Telecom specifically took a bigger
                          > hit.<BR><BR>
                          > > <BR><BR>
                          >
                          === message truncated ===


                          __________________________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
                          http://news.yahoo.com
                        • Joschka Fisher
                          Are you sure? ( Regarding Content of the Delivery!!) Are you sure you’ll spare the life of Barabbas for the death of Jesus? Are you sure that’s it’s
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 18, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Are you sure? ( Regarding Content of the Delivery!!)

                            Are you sure you’ll spare the life of Barabbas
                            for the death of Jesus?

                            Are you sure that’s it’s Tangiers, Langston Hughes
                            wanted instead of the hangman’s noose? (rhymes with
                            Jesus…see!! You weren’t sure!)
                            http://www.cindydrew.com/sr/other/p1text.shtml

                            Did Rodger Waters & Pink Floyd, get it right at this
                            tender late age:
                            “Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war…for a
                            leading role in a cage?”
                            http://www.songlyrics.co.nz/lyrics/p/pinkfloyd/wish.htm

                            Are you sure, that “Romance at short notice
                            philistine” , is the consumer role you wish to play?:

                            A futurist technophile,
                            in bed with quick quips,
                            …short-riffs, and
                            cut-and-paste, wireless, T1-ethernet, information ..
                            er,…without delay?

                            While content & questions waste aside…

                            ..or as in Simon & Garfunkel’s “Dangling
                            Conversation”
                            http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/9574/lyrics_dangling_conversation.htm

                            …just a superficial sigh?

                            Never reaching the heart of the matter. But bantering
                            through time!!!

                            A cell phoned, high-tech’d Sisyphys…like the rest of
                            us, queuing up for the next advertised line?

                            Are you truly sure, that you know, what you’re wishing
                            for?

                            Joseph S. Anderson
                            [Needless to say, I’m close to delivering…Another week
                            of this research…and I’m applying to Rand, Ford
                            Foundation or Brookings Institution!]




                            --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> a écrit : >
                            > By the way, I'm still waiting the fleshed-out
                            > response.
                            > This looks to be interesting.
                            >
                            > --- Joschka Fisher <grabarkowic@...> wrote:
                            > > Ok...this is a skeleton/outline of my objections
                            > to
                            > > your assessment of the chip industry and is
                            > perceived
                            > > cyclical comeback.
                            > >
                            > > It's also a criticism of "Yea technology improves
                            > but
                            > > who gets to use it", from the Economics point of
                            > view.
                            > >
                            > > Do remember that the Japanese just beat the sh**
                            > out
                            > > of us in building the world's fastest computer
                            > using
                            > > 10+ year old technology. ( Still looking for that
                            > > article!)
                            > >
                            > > "er was it you or Wayne Radinsky?" this is
                            > submitted
                            > > to?
                            > >
                            > > Either way a lot of data and I've got one
                            > Economist
                            > > article I'm trying to get but I can't afford the
                            > > $60.00 subscription so I have to break-into the
                            > > Stanford Business School computers to get the
                            > article.
                            > > Sorry but it should take about 24 hours to get
                            > it..and
                            > > a few other items. "Heee Hee".
                            > >
                            > > I'll fill in the rest within the next couple days
                            > > since this is time consuming, but damned
                            > interesting.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Anderson Evaluations: The Problem with Technology
                            > for
                            > > Technology Sake and argument against Wayne's
                            > > assessment!
                            > >
                            > > SIA organization, the source of your data and the
                            > > reporting systems, in general!
                            > > 1. My general disklike/distrust of SIA reports
                            > and
                            > > good reasons why:
                            > > 2. Reporting alternatives and their “accuracy”
                            > over
                            > >
                            > > past 3 years!
                            > >
                            > > Current effort/trends of countries to build
                            > > semiconductor/foundry plants. ( is Rally round the
                            > > Maypole, a good idea?)
                            > > 1. Source of talent
                            > > 2. Salaries
                            > > 3. Saturation and market glut
                            > >
                            > > The costs of semiconductor and foundry
                            > construction or
                            > > retooling
                            > > 1. Defining semiconductor vs. foundry industries
                            > > 2. Why Foundries were only recently included in
                            > the
                            > > semiconductor industry.
                            > >
                            > > Record of projected profit margins vs.actual over
                            > past
                            > > 3 years
                            > >
                            > > 1. By different reporting agencies (including
                            > SIA)
                            > > 2. Markets the Semi/Foundry serve
                            > >
                            > > Demand markets behaviour for such technology in
                            > the
                            > > current and future arena
                            > >
                            > > 1. So who’s buying "said new technology" and
                            > what
                            > > are they being used for?
                            > > 2. Profitability & Market thresholds of these
                            > “end-
                            > > user”-industries over past 3 years.
                            > >
                            > > The high-tech pollution problem: assessment and
                            > costs
                            > > to the industry.
                            > >
                            > > Evaluation of Semi/Foundry under the John
                            > Goldsmith
                            > > Economics
                            > >
                            > > 1. The economics of Zu Schleuderpreisen and its
                            > > problems around the world in the
                            > Semi/Foundry
                            > > industry!
                            > >
                            > > Why Technology for Technology sake, is a near
                            > > aliteration of s', as in: is seriously
                            > short-sigted,
                            > > silly and the end of evolution!
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- markfinnern <markfinnern@...> a écrit :
                            > > <HR>
                            > > <html><body>
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > <tt>
                            > > Well J. S. Anderson,<BR>
                            > > <BR>
                            > > More then 4 days of agonizing waiting has passed,
                            > but
                            > > still no reply <BR>
                            > > post from you :-(<BR>
                            > > <BR>
                            > > Looking forward to it, Mark. <BR>
                            > > <BR>
                            > > <BR>
                            > > --- In bafuture@y..., Joschka Fisher
                            > > <grabarkowic@y...> wrote:<BR>
                            > > > YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR
                            > > INFORMATION.<BR>
                            > > > J.S.ANDERSON <BR>
                            > > > <BR>
                            > > > <BR>
                            > > > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> a
                            > > écrit : <BR>
                            > > > <HR><BR>
                            > > > <html><body><BR>
                            > > > <BR>
                            > > > <BR>
                            > > > <tt><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good
                            > > does<BR>
                            > > > that do?<BR><BR>
                            > > > We'll all be smarter and better off if we put
                            > > our<BR>
                            > > > heads<BR><BR>
                            > > > together and learn from each other rather
                            > > than<BR>
                            > > > make<BR><BR>
                            > > > threats, no?<BR><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > Maybe I am just being naive
                            > again.<BR><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong
                            > > about,<BR>
                            > > > but<BR><BR>
                            > > > things seem to check out to me. I said that
                            > > chip<BR>
                            > > > sales<BR><BR>
                            > > > were growing since April.<BR><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter
                            > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > <a<BR>
                            > > > href="<a
                            > >
                            >
                            href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                            > > ID=235"><a
                            > >
                            >
                            href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a></a><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for
                            > > Worldwide<BR><BR>
                            > > > Semiconductor Industry <BR><BR>
                            > > > <a<BR>
                            > > > href="<a
                            > >
                            >
                            href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?</a><BR>
                            > > ID=231"><a
                            > >
                            >
                            href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a></a><BR><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > This is a more recent article:<BR><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > Chip sector releases mixed
                            > figures<BR><BR>
                            > > > <a<BR>
                            > > > <BR>
                            > > href="<a
                            > >
                            >
                            href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>"><a
                            > > href="http://www.th">http://www.th</a><BR>
                            > > eregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > <BR><BR>
                            > > > I interpret this to mean that the waters are
                            > > still<BR>
                            >
                            === message truncated ===

                            ___________________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
                            Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
                          • wayne radinsky
                            Joseph, I m still waiting for the response to Current State of the Art . Are you ever going to post it? Or just drop mysterious threats of destroying my
                            Message 13 of 17 , Oct 24, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Joseph,

                              I'm still waiting for the response to "Current State of the
                              Art". Are you ever going to post it? Or just drop mysterious
                              threats of destroying my worldview, then disappear?

                              - - -

                              OIDA has posted new data on the optoelectronics
                              industry [pdf format]. OIDA's data is flawed -- you say --
                              but why?
                              http://www.oida.org/pdfs/oidanews/oidanews1002.pdf

                              Intel's Fab 11x means bigger, better chips
                              Transitioning to 90-nm fabs
                              http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-963065.html

                              Samsung Electronics is building 90-nm fab
                              http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20021023S0032

                              Semiconductor industry turned down in September
                              SEMI's data is flawed -- you say -- but why?
                              http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021017S0045

                              - - -

                              > Are you sure? ( Regarding Content of the Delivery!!)

                              Yes!

                              > Are you sure you�ll spare the life of Barabbas
                              > for the death of Jesus?

                              Yes! (Well, not literally).

                              > Are you sure that�s it�s Tangiers, Langston Hughes
                              > wanted instead of the hangman�s noose? (rhymes with
                              > Jesus -- see!! You weren�t sure!)
                              > http://www.cindydrew.com/sr/other/p1text.shtml

                              Yup.

                              > Did Rodger Waters & Pink Floyd, get it right at this
                              > tender late age:
                              > �Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war�for a
                              > leading role in a cage?�
                              > http://www.songlyrics.co.nz/lyrics/p/pinkfloyd/wish.htm

                              Oh yes, they got it exactly right...

                              > Are you sure, that �Romance at short notice
                              > philistine� , is the consumer role you wish to play?:

                              Yes.

                              > A futurist technophile,
                              > in bed with quick quips,
                              > �short-riffs, and
                              > cut-and-paste, wireless, T1-ethernet, information ..
                              > er,�without delay?

                              Yes I'm sure.

                              > While content & questions waste aside�
                              >
                              > ..or as in Simon & Garfunkel�s �Dangling
                              > Conversation�
                              >
                              http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/9574/lyrics_dangling_conversation.htm
                              >
                              > �just a superficial sigh?
                              >
                              > Never reaching the heart of the matter. But bantering
                              > through time!!!
                              >
                              > A cell phoned, high-tech�d Sisyphys�like the rest of
                              > us, queuing up for the next advertised line?

                              Yes! Post it.

                              Did you mean Sisyphus?

                              > Are you truly sure, that you know, what you�re wishing
                              > for?

                              YES!!! Post it already!

                              Why is OIDA data incorrect? Why is SEMI data incorrect?
                              Where on this planet can you get better data?
                              If there's a flaw in my logic and reasoning, where is it?
                              If Moore's Law can't be extrapolated, what's going
                              to stop it?

                              Sincerely,
                              Wayne L. Radinsky
                              Supposed Futurist On Superficial High

                              p.s. Actually I don't own a cell phone.



                              __________________________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
                              http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
                            • wayne radinsky
                              You may recall that Moore s Law is computing power per dollar . Right now the industry is focused on cutting costs. This article is about How the shift to
                              Message 14 of 17 , Dec 6, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                You may recall that Moore's Law is computing power
                                "per dollar". Right now the industry is focused on
                                cutting costs.

                                This article is about "How the shift to larger wafers
                                and thin circuits" will lower the cost of chip
                                production and "transform the industry."


                                Chips on Monster Wafers
                                http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_45/b3807002.htm


                                - - -
                                AMD's upcoming processor will be a "100 million transistor
                                machine", 2.5 times the number of transistors as the current
                                Athlon chip. And that's even without using "monster wafers"
                                (from above article).


                                "Hammer" to hold 100 million transistors
                                http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-975510.html


                                - - -
                                The other big bit of news is the Toshiba/Sony 65-nanometer
                                technology announcement.


                                Toshiba, Sony shrink LSIs
                                "Toshiba Corp and Sony Corp said Tuesday they have jointly
                                developed a technology to limit the width of electric
                                circuits on a system large-scale integrated circuit (LSI)
                                chip to 65 nanometers for the first time in the world."
                                http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=4&id=241290

                                Enabling the shift towards "ubiquitous computing," Japan's
                                Toshiba Corp. and Sony Corp. late Monday announced the
                                world's first 65-nm CMOS process technology for embedded
                                memories
                                http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021202S0091

                                Toshiba, Sony unveil 65-nm embedded memory process
                                http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20021202S0091


                                - - -
                                More talk of 65-nm and 45-nm process technology:


                                IBM signs chip manufacturing deal with Chartered Semi
                                "The deal with IBM will give Chartered access to
                                300-millimeter manufacturing capacity using IBM's
                                90-nanometer process technology from the third quarter of
                                next year and ease some of the competitive pressure it
                                faces from TSMC and UMC, the companies said in a statement.
                                In addition to giving each company access to manufacturing
                                capacity, IBM and Chartered will jointly develop
                                90-nanometer and 65-nanometer processes for production on
                                300-millimeter wafers. Down the road, the companies said an
                                option exists to extend that agreement to include
                                45-nanometer process technology."
                                http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1622/021127ibmchartered/


                                - - -
                                IBM is also in the news because of their "3D" technology.
                                Semiconductors currently are limited to 2 dimensional
                                designs, so 3D manufacturing is the next logical step.


                                3D IC design promises to boost chip performance
                                http://www.eetasia.com/article_content.php3?article_id=8800285653

                                IBM Claims 3D Chip Breakthrough
                                http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=24146

                                IBM develops 3-D stacking technology for ICs
                                http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021111S0014


                                - - -
                                Some articles on the overall economic climate:


                                SEMI survey shows '02 fab-tool market to fall 32%
                                http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021204S0046

                                Metro WDM: What Carriers Think (5 page report)
                                http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=23979

                                'Raw' SIA data shows October semi sales at $11.7 billion
                                http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021203S0040

                                Chip equipment vendors step carefully through downturn
                                http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20021125S0052

                                Growth in chip sales slows, Europe hot, U.S. flat
                                http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20021129S0007

                                Mark your calendars. There's an upturn coming in the
                                semiconductors industry, and it starts on June 21, 2003.
                                http://www.forbes.com/2002/11/20/cx_ah_1120halla.html


                                - - -
                                Other assorted news items that might or might not (but might)
                                be of interest... (or might not...)


                                Meet the New Silicon Speed Demon
                                "At 350 gigahertz, this IBM transistor is the fastest ever.
                                And it's just the first of a new generation of tiny
                                powerhouses"
                                http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2002/tc2002115_0584.htm

                                NTT researchers develop 100Gbit/s multiplexer IC
                                http://www.commsdesign.com/news/tech_beat/OEG20021204S0012

                                Another article on NTT
                                http://compoundsemiconductor.net/articles/news/6/11/20/1

                                Chipmakers bang away at metal gates
                                More on the 65 nm technology
                                http://www.eetasia.com/article_content.php3?article_id=8800288936

                                AlGaN/GaN HEMTs break records at IEDM
                                http://compoundsemiconductor.net/articles/news/6/12/3/1

                                Memory in a spin
                                http://www.dialelectronics.com.au/articles/6f/0c012f6f.asp

                                Startup debuts 'nanoimprint' litho tool for 20-nm designs
                                "The Imprio 100 is not a conventional photolithography
                                scanner, but rather the tool is an 'electron-beam
                                replicator' that utilizes ultraviolet (UV) and liquid
                                emersion technologies to enable or 'imprint' patterns on a
                                wafer."
                                http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20021202S0082


                                Wayne






                                --- wayne radinsky <spodware@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Joseph,
                                >
                                > I'm still waiting for the response to "Current State of the
                                > Art". Are you ever going to post it? Or just drop mysterious
                                > threats of destroying my worldview, then disappear?
                                >
                                > - - -
                                >
                                > OIDA has posted new data on the optoelectronics
                                > industry [pdf format]. OIDA's data is flawed -- you say --
                                > but why?
                                > http://www.oida.org/pdfs/oidanews/oidanews1002.pdf
                                >
                                > Intel's Fab 11x means bigger, better chips
                                > Transitioning to 90-nm fabs
                                > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-963065.html
                                >
                                > Samsung Electronics is building 90-nm fab
                                > http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20021023S0032
                                >
                                > Semiconductor industry turned down in September
                                > SEMI's data is flawed -- you say -- but why?
                                > http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021017S0045
                                >
                                > - - -
                                >
                                > > Are you sure? ( Regarding Content of the Delivery!!)
                                >
                                > Yes!
                                >
                                > > Are you sure you�ll spare the life of Barabbas
                                > > for the death of Jesus?
                                >
                                > Yes! (Well, not literally).
                                >
                                > > Are you sure that�s it�s Tangiers, Langston Hughes
                                > > wanted instead of the hangman�s noose? (rhymes with
                                > > Jesus -- see!! You weren�t sure!)
                                > > http://www.cindydrew.com/sr/other/p1text.shtml
                                >
                                > Yup.
                                >
                                > > Did Rodger Waters & Pink Floyd, get it right at this
                                > > tender late age:
                                > > �Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war�for a
                                > > leading role in a cage?�
                                > > http://www.songlyrics.co.nz/lyrics/p/pinkfloyd/wish.htm
                                >
                                > Oh yes, they got it exactly right...
                                >
                                > > Are you sure, that �Romance at short notice
                                > > philistine� , is the consumer role you wish to play?:
                                >
                                > Yes.
                                >
                                > > A futurist technophile,
                                > > in bed with quick quips,
                                > > �short-riffs, and
                                > > cut-and-paste, wireless, T1-ethernet, information ..
                                > > er,�without delay?
                                >
                                > Yes I'm sure.
                                >
                                > > While content & questions waste aside�
                                > >
                                > > ..or as in Simon & Garfunkel�s �Dangling
                                > > Conversation�
                                > >
                                >
                                http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/9574/lyrics_dangling_conversation.htm
                                > >
                                > > �just a superficial sigh?
                                > >
                                > > Never reaching the heart of the matter. But bantering
                                > > through time!!!
                                > >
                                > > A cell phoned, high-tech�d Sisyphys�like the rest of
                                > > us, queuing up for the next advertised line?
                                >
                                > Yes! Post it.
                                >
                                > Did you mean Sisyphus?
                                >
                                > > Are you truly sure, that you know, what you�re wishing
                                > > for?
                                >
                                > YES!!! Post it already!
                                >
                                > Why is OIDA data incorrect? Why is SEMI data incorrect?
                                > Where on this planet can you get better data?
                                > If there's a flaw in my logic and reasoning, where is it?
                                > If Moore's Law can't be extrapolated, what's going
                                > to stop it?
                                >
                                > Sincerely,
                                > Wayne L. Radinsky
                                > Supposed Futurist On Superficial High
                                >
                                > p.s. Actually I don't own a cell phone.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > __________________________________________________
                                > Do you Yahoo!?
                                > Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
                                > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
                                >
                                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                >
                                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                > bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >


                                __________________________________________________
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                              • Joschka Fisher
                                The Past Revisited: The Following Article is from Financial Times: Feb 7th ww.ft.com/infotech ( but ya need a subscription so I just typed it ) If I remember
                                Message 15 of 17 , Feb 9, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  The Past Revisited:

                                  The Following Article is from Financial Times: Feb 7th
                                  ww.ft.com/infotech ( but ya need a subscription so I
                                  just typed it )

                                  If I remember this...I thought the predictions about
                                  the chip market were severely wrong, plus I sent a
                                  follow-up indicating the chip makers were not posting
                                  information to the USA or anyone else. Yes it's
                                  voluntary for a number of quarters...but it suggested
                                  strongly that the SIA ( who's predictions are always
                                  wrong) et al were up to no good and in deep doodoo
                                  with chip sales.

                                  Additionally, I believe I said that the cost of
                                  building a plant vs the profit you make on chips is a
                                  becoming a point of no return. I later found out this
                                  is called Moore's 2nd Law!!

                                  Well...here's the article after-the fact!

                                  Financial Times by Tom Foremski in San Francisco:

                                  GLOBAL CHIP SALES ROSE A MEAGER 1.3% IN 2002, BARELY
                                  RECOVERING FROM 2001'S 32% PLUNGE AND MISSING ALL
                                  PROJECTIONS FOR THE YEAR.

                                  But the Semiconductor industry, Associates ( SIA),
                                  the leading trade body, said it was a "remarkable
                                  performance" and that the industry should grow mnearly
                                  20% in 2003.

                                  The SIA's predictions have been consistenly inacc
                                  urate. It forecast 2002 was to produce 6% growth but
                                  the predition was halved by the sumer.

                                  Similarly, 2001 was to have ben another
                                  record-setting year of growth for the global chip
                                  sector, producing about $240bn, a miss of more than
                                  $100bn.

                                  The chip and chip equipment sectors continue to
                                  suffer from a glut, together with production capacity
                                  and prices that have hit 10 y6ear lows.

                                  George Scalise, SIA president pointed to growth in
                                  wireless communications chips and some signs of rising
                                  demand in the stagnant PC market - which accounts for
                                  30% of chip sales.

                                  "We expect the momentum built in both cell phones
                                  an dPCs throughout 2002 to increase in 2003. As a
                                  result for the first time since 2000, we believe IT
                                  spending on hardware will register an increase", he
                                  said.

                                  Chip sales in 2002 were $140.7bn and the SIA
                                  predicting a rise to $169bn this year

                                  But Wall St. Analyst are far less bullishon the
                                  sector and expect a fragile first quarter with little
                                  visibility into market conditions. December sales
                                  figures showed weak growth in the forth quarter -
                                  traditionally a strong period as electronic goods and
                                  PC makers gear up for the holiday season.

                                  The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index, a basket of
                                  leading chip and chip equipment companies, finished
                                  the day down 0.4% at 270.56. The index continues to
                                  languish at low levels; it traded as high as 614 last
                                  March on hpes of a strong recovery in demand.

                                  The Asia Pacific market grew an unprecedented 29%
                                  last year. This is the fastest growth in a regional
                                  market and compared with declines of 13% in the
                                  Americas, 8% in Japan and 8% in Europe.

                                  The failure of any rebound in chp sales has hurt
                                  chip equipment makers as m anufacturers have sharply
                                  curtailed capital investments in new failities
                                  ======


                                  --- markfinnern <markfinnern@...> a écrit :
                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Uhu, all in caps, 'VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION'
                                  All your base are belong to us, or what?
                                  (See:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4143466,00.html)

                                  Well I felt compelled to check my passport, just to
                                  'verify my
                                  infordentity'. Still the same old, same old, which is
                                  reaffirming.

                                  There is some nice anticipation building up here, the
                                  expectations
                                  are high, hope your post lives up to the hype.

                                  Darn, another 4 days.
                                  Can't wait, Mark.
                                  P.S. Like your fake Joschka Fischer email identity. Is
                                  that in homage
                                  to him?

                                  --- In bafuture@y..., Joschka Fisher
                                  <grabarkowic@y...> wrote:
                                  > YOU NOW HAVE 4 DAYS, TO VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION.
                                  > J.S.ANDERSON
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- wayne radinsky <spodware@y...> a écrit :
                                  > <HR>
                                  > <html><body>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > <tt>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Gee that sounds pretty threatening. What good does
                                  > that do?<BR>
                                  > We'll all be smarter and better off if we put our
                                  > heads<BR>
                                  > together and learn from each other rather than
                                  > make<BR>
                                  > threats, no?<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Maybe I am just being naive again.<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Anyway, I don't what you think I was wrong about,
                                  > but<BR>
                                  > things seem to check out to me. I said that chip
                                  > sales<BR>
                                  > were growing since April.<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Chip Sales Grow 5.8% in June Quarter <BR>
                                  > <a
                                  > href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?
                                  ID=235">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=235</a>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > May Chip Sales Reach $11.37 Billion for
                                  Worldwide<BR>
                                  > Semiconductor Industry <BR>
                                  > <a
                                  > href="http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?
                                  ID=231">http://www.semichips.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=231</a><BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > This is a more recent article:<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Chip sector releases mixed figures<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html">http://www.th
                                  eregister.co.uk/content/3/26793.html</a>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > I interpret this to mean that the waters are still
                                  > choppy.<BR>
                                  > Although I suppose you could argue that it's the
                                  > beginning<BR>
                                  > of another downturn, but I don't expect that.<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > As for communications equipment sales, actually I
                                  > didn't say<BR>
                                  > telecom sales were going back up, (only the
                                  > semiconductor<BR>
                                  > industry as a whole) and they haven't yet.<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > OE Markets - Demand<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.oida.org/demand.html">http://www.oida.org/demand.html
                                  </a>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > OE component sales, 2001 <BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.oida.org/comprev.html">http://www.oida.org/comprev.ht
                                  ml</a><BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > The graphs show 2001 decreased to below 1999
                                  > levels.<BR>
                                  > (But not to 0 :) It's for all optoelectronic
                                  > eqipment.<BR>
                                  > Telecom specifically took a bigger hit.<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Optical networking's next frontier<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm">htt
                                  p://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3922499.htm</a><BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > I said Moore's Law continues in spite of economic
                                  > recession.<BR>
                                  > Recently:<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Intel Begins Shipping Itanium 2 Processors<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm
                                  ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020708comp.htm</a>
                                  <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Intel Ships The World's First 2 Gigahertz
                                  > Microprocessor For<BR>
                                  > Mobile PCs <BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm
                                  ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020624comp.htm</a>
                                  <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Intel Unveils World's Most Advanced Chip-Making
                                  > Process<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm
                                  ">http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20020813tech.htm</a>
                                  <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > And telecom technology is continuing to advance in
                                  > spite<BR>
                                  > of the recession as well, and a quick look at any
                                  > telecom<BR>
                                  > equipment vendor web site will show.<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Scientists at Bell Labs have used their
                                  collective<BR>
                                  > multidisciplinary expertise to help design
                                  > LambdaXtreme<BR>
                                  > Transport, the most advanced long-distance
                                  > communications<BR>
                                  > system now on the market.<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  > href="http://www.bell-
                                  labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html">http://www.bell-
                                  labs.com/news/features/feature_01.html</a>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > JDS Uniphase Announces New Semiconductor Optical
                                  > Amplifiers<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=249&PageName=JDS%
                                  20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%20Optical%
                                  20Amplifiers">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=24
                                  9&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20New%20Semiconductor%
                                  20Optical%20Amplifiers</a><BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > JDS Uniphase Boosts High-Level Functionality of
                                  > RX3<BR>
                                  > Series Multichannel Backreflection Meters with Two
                                  > New<BR>
                                  > Features <BR>
                                  > Unique three-laser wavelength testing and 10 mm
                                  > InGaAs<BR>
                                  > detector provide broader testing capabilities,
                                  > reduce<BR>
                                  > ownership cost<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=231&PageName=JDS%
                                  20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%20of%20RX3%
                                  20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%20Two%20New%
                                  20Features">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=23
                                  1&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Boosts%20High%2DLevel%20Functionality%
                                  20of%20RX3%20Series%20Multichannel%20Backreflection%20Meters%20with%
                                  20Two%20New%20Features</a><BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > JDS Uniphase Announces Dramatic Performance
                                  > Improvement In Thin<BR>
                                  > Film Filters for Wideband Applications<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  > href="http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=233&PageName=JDS%
                                  20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%20Improvement%20In%
                                  20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%
                                  20Applications">http://www.jdsu.com/index2.cfm?
                                  CID=3&NAVCID=3&DSP=PressRelease&ACT=Display&PressID=23
                                  3&PageName=JDS%20Uniphase%20Announces%20Dramatic%20Performance%
                                  20Improvement%20In%20Thin%20Film%20Filters%20for%20Wideband%
                                  20Applications</a><BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Now what you really want to do is graph out
                                  > processor<BR>
                                  > performance per dollar over time. For bandwidth,
                                  > it's<BR>
                                  > harder because there are more variables, but what
                                  > you<BR>
                                  > want to do is calculate Gb / s / km / dollar for
                                  > telecom<BR>
                                  > equipment and show that it is an exponential curve
                                  > over<BR>
                                  > long periods of time. This is the whole essence of
                                  > Gilder's<BR>
                                  > Law / Huber's Law. I don't have the data to do this
                                  > but<BR>
                                  > maybe you can find it and calculate it. The price
                                  > data<BR>
                                  > is important because the calculation is per unit
                                  > cost.<BR>
                                  > The industry now is focusing more on decreasing
                                  > cost<BR>
                                  > on the low end than on advancing the high end.<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Finally, here is an article about the telecom
                                  > meltdown.<BR>
                                  > If you think the recession has stopped
                                  technology<BR>
                                  > advancement, you might have the cause and effect
                                  > backwards.<BR>
                                  > The author believes that the rapid pace of
                                  > technology<BR>
                                  > advancement is one of the *causes* of the telecom
                                  > meltdown.<BR>
                                  > As you might expect, if long-distance phone service
                                  > is<BR>
                                  > "free", that has severe consequences for
                                  the
                                  > people who<BR>
                                  > build their business on it. (As I mentioned earlier,
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Nathan Myhrvold predicted in 1993 that long distance
                                  > would<BR>
                                  > become free.)<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Future not so bright for telecoms<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm
                                  ">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/invest/2002/07/15/telecom.htm</a>
                                  <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > Ok, let me have it.<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > --- Joseph Anderson
                                  > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR>
                                  > > Uh....Wayne...<BR>
                                  > > <BR>
                                  > > Since I'm such a nice guy, I'm gonna give you 7
                                  > days to check<BR>
                                  > > your facts on this before I, er...<BR>
                                  > > <BR>
                                  > > Let you have it.<BR>
                                  > > <BR>
                                  > > j.s.a.<BR>
                                  > > <BR>
                                  > > --- wayne radinsky spodware@y...
                                  > wrote:<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >--- Joseph Anderson
                                  > bigwhiskey@e... wrote:<BR>
                                  > > >> Yea...and kudos...but<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> If there's room at the bottom....<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> and  aint' nobody buying to
                                  > maintain a market...<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> then it's nothing more than nanotech
                                  for
                                  > "nada" or oh!<BR>
                                  > > >> no-profits?<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >I don't see what you are getting at here.
                                  > Semiconductor<BR>
                                  > > >sales started increasing in April. We're
                                  > already into the<BR>
                                  > > >next boom cycle. It's pretty weak at this
                                  > point, but it<BR>
                                  > > >will grow. There are buyers in the market,
                                  > and as<BR>
                                  > > >technology gets more powerful, there will
                                  be
                                  > more products<BR>
                                  > > >people want to buy.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >> Pretty soon...your local economy is
                                  > devastasted and YOU'RE<BR>
                                  > > >> at the bottom!<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >I don't see what you are getting at here.
                                  > There are many<BR>
                                  > > >devastated local economies in the world.
                                  This
                                  > does not<BR>
                                  > > >affect the accelerating pace of technology
                                  > development.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >> Technology has several environments
                                  it's
                                  > responsible for.<BR>
                                  > > >> Like it or not.  Biological is
                                  > one.  Economic is certainly<BR>
                                  > > >> the other.<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> Or do you pour money into spin-doctors
                                  > and artificial price<BR>
                                  > > >> supports via Enron, Anderson
                                  Consulting,
                                  > and WorldCom's<BR>
                                  > > >> accounting techniques? So...for a
                                  while,
                                  > no-on will notice?<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >Again, the collapse of Enron, Anderson,
                                  > Global Crossing,<BR>
                                  > > >WorldCom, etc, does not slow the pace of
                                  > technology. This<BR>
                                  > > >may seem counterintuitive, but it has no
                                  > effect.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >> On the otherhand...if you can convince
                                  > people to work for<BR>
                                  > > >> next to nothing ( especially you
                                  > California High $$ types )<BR>
                                  > > >> or are willing to suffer the
                                  > consequences of globalization<BR>
                                  > > >> where Government interests and Corp
                                  > Interest cannot<BR>
                                  > > >> co-exist. Then...Have yo' technology!!
                                  > ..and more of it! (<BR>
                                  > > >> q.v. Sir John Goldsmith's books:<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> The Trap<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> The Response<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html">http://ww
                                  w.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ashes/RESPREV2.html</a><BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >Interesting article. Thanks. I'm not sure
                                  how
                                  > it ties in<BR>
                                  > > >with my post. The theme of this article is
                                  > "free trade".<BR>
                                  > > >What's the connection? That semiconductors
                                  > are manufactured<BR>
                                  > > >by "free trade"? That
                                  technological
                                  > advancement has not<BR>
                                  > > >brought economic equality between
                                  > nations?<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >> Somwhere earlier there was a
                                  > "joie-de-vivre" on these<BR>
                                  > > >> Salons regarding technology being able
                                  > to continue despite<BR>
                                  > > >> adversity. " For higher silicon
                                  > evolution!"<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> You know like war? I think someone
                                  > particularly mentioned<BR>
                                  > > >> that "side-track" to
                                  > technological progress.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >That was me, yup. But I don't know where
                                  you
                                  > got the " For<BR>
                                  > > >higher silicon evolution!" part. I'm
                                  > only saying that, as a<BR>
                                  > > >matter of fact, economic recession does not
                                  > slow down the<BR>
                                  > > >advancement of technology. If you don't
                                  > believe me, draw a<BR>
                                  > > >graph. Plot out transistor size, or CPU
                                  clock
                                  > speed, or<BR>
                                  > > >whatever, and see whether it goes down
                                  during
                                  > the current<BR>
                                  > > >economic recession.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >You'll see, it doesn't, it maintains its
                                  > exponential<BR>
                                  > > >trajectory. This is not a
                                  > "joie-de-vivre", this is an<BR>
                                  > > >empirical fact.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >> I keep remembering a cartoon in the
                                  > Village Voice by<BR>
                                  > > >> Oliphant, during the week the Neutron
                                  > Bomb was announced,<BR>
                                  > > >> as a device that did not destroy
                                  > buildings. Of course, I<BR>
                                  > > >> don't have to tell you and the NYTimes
                                  > article never<BR>
                                  > > >> said...er um but kills a whoppin' lot
                                  of
                                  > people with<BR>
                                  > > >> high-radiation levels over 3-7
                                  > days.  It showed a bunch of<BR>
                                  > > >> accountants jumping for joy on their
                                  > desks!<BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >><BR>
                                  > > >> This is what gets me most.  The
                                  > survival instinct when<BR>
                                  > > >> assuaged by technology for technology
                                  > sake, opinions and<BR>
                                  > > >> modern day tech toys...gets overlooked
                                  > and in the<BR>
                                  > > >> process...over-ridden.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >Quite possibly.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >There seem to be 3 main lines of thought on
                                  > this sort of<BR>
                                  > > >thing.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >1) The optimistic outlook -- technological
                                  > advancement<BR>
                                  > > >will, by itself, make everything better.
                                  John
                                  > Smart is<BR>
                                  > > >definitely in this category. He believes
                                  > that, as the<BR>
                                  > > >technological singularity approaches, that
                                  we
                                  > will all be<BR>
                                  > > >amazed by the speed at which the remaining
                                  > human problems<BR>
                                  > > >are solved. He has some of the most clever
                                  > and unusual<BR>
                                  > > >arguments of any of the thinkers I know of,
                                  > such as the<BR>
                                  > > >idea that as a complex adaptive system
                                  > increases in<BR>
                                  > > >complexity, it also increases the
                                  > concentration on<BR>
                                  > > >positive-sum interactions, and decreases in
                                  > violence and<BR>
                                  > > >other zero-sum or negative-sum
                                  interactions.
                                  > Ray Kurzweil<BR>
                                  > > >sort of goes in this category -- he likes
                                  to
                                  > talk about how<BR>
                                  > > >human lifespan is being extended
                                  > exponentially and so<BR>
                                  > > >fourth. Kurzweil acknowledges the downside
                                  --
                                  > he has a<BR>
                                  > > >"Dangerous Futures" section on
                                  his
                                  > website and so on.<BR>
                                  > > >So he is not 100% in this category, but I
                                  > think that is<BR>
                                  > > >the overall theme of his thinking.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >2) The "we can control the
                                  outcome"
                                  > outlook -- I would  put<BR>
                                  > > >Foresight (Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle,
                                  > Christine Peterson,<BR>
                                  > > >etc), because Foresight's basic premise is
                                  > that if you can<BR>
                                  > > >influence the "initial
                                  conditions"
                                  > of technological<BR>
                                  > > >development early in the process, then you
                                  > can influence<BR>
                                  > > >where the whole trajectory goes and thereby
                                  > head the system<BR>
                                  > > >off in the direction of a positive outcome.
                                  I
                                  > would put<BR>
                                  > > >Eliezer Yudkowsky in this category as well,
                                  > although he<BR>
                                  > > >seems to take the view that he personally
                                  is
                                  > going to<BR>
                                  > > >invent strong AI, preprogram it with Asimov
                                  > laws, and save<BR>
                                  > > >the world (more or less). Of course, you
                                  can
                                  > probably guess,<BR>
                                  > > >by the wording I use, that I'm very
                                  skeptical
                                  > his approach<BR>
                                  > > >will work. :)<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >3) The "pessimistic" outlook.
                                  This
                                  > is the "technology will<BR>
                                  > > >make humanity extinct!" point of view
                                  > expressed by people<BR>
                                  > > >like Mark Gubrud. And possibly Bill Joy,
                                  > although I was<BR>
                                  > > >never sure whether Bill Joy really believes
                                  > this point of<BR>
                                  > > >view or whether he was just trying to
                                  provoke
                                  > widespread<BR>
                                  > > >discussion on the issue. (Which he
                                  certainly
                                  > did in any<BR>
                                  > > >case). Gubrud takes the moralistic position
                                  > -- that humans<BR>
                                  > > >must stop technology because technology
                                  will
                                  > make humanity<BR>
                                  > > >extinct, and that's morally wrong.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >For my part, I think I lean towards the
                                  > pessimistic<BR>
                                  > > >viewpoint simply because I was once a big
                                  > believer in the<BR>
                                  > > >"techno-utopian" viewpoint -- the
                                  > idea that we'll invent<BR>
                                  > > >technology that will solve humanity's
                                  > problems. My time at<BR>
                                  > > >Microsoft disillusioned me of that concept
                                  > pretty<BR>
                                  > > >thoroughly. Sure, Microsoft may make
                                  > technology that solves<BR>
                                  > > >human problems. It's just that that's not
                                  > really<BR>
                                  > > >Microsoft's *intent* -- it helps them sell
                                  > software, but<BR>
                                  > > >it's the selling of software that they
                                  really
                                  > care about.<BR>
                                  > > >David Gelernter (from Yale University) has
                                  > written some<BR>
                                  > > >stuff about how "technology doesn't
                                  > solve social problems",<BR>
                                  > > >how he expected technology to solve social
                                  > problems and<BR>
                                  > > >went through a similar (though milder :)
                                  > disillusionment.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >One of the reasons I have the view that I
                                  > have is that I<BR>
                                  > > >now interpret technological development as
                                  > being part of<BR>
                                  > > >the same process that drives biological
                                  > development. And in<BR>
                                  > > >the biological realm, there is nothing
                                  > special about the<BR>
                                  > > >human species -- it is just another
                                  species.
                                  > So I question<BR>
                                  > > >the argument that John Smart puts fourth,
                                  > that advanced<BR>
                                  > > >technology in the future will care about
                                  > solving human<BR>
                                  > > >problems. We don't care about other species
                                  > (we, humans,<BR>
                                  > > >are causing a mass extinction right now),
                                  for
                                  > the most part<BR>
                                  > > >-- there are exceptions like Rainforest
                                  > Action Network and<BR>
                                  > > >so on. So while the human species
                                  > unquestionably rules the<BR>
                                  > > >planet at the moment -- but only at the
                                  > moment. The process<BR>
                                  > > >of evolution does not intrinsically favor
                                  the
                                  > human<BR>
                                  > > >species. So I don't see why future robots
                                  > with strong AI<BR>
                                  > > >will care to spend their intelligence
                                  solving
                                  > humanity's<BR>
                                  > > >problems. On the other hand, I don't agree
                                  > with Mark Gubrud<BR>
                                  > > >that extinction is a likely result. I see
                                  no
                                  > evidence that<BR>
                                  > > >the development of complex species causes
                                  the
                                  > simple ones<BR>
                                  > > >to go extinct simply because they are
                                  simple.
                                  > Otherwise<BR>
                                  > > >there would not be microbes and insects and
                                  > so fourth<BR>
                                  > > >today. So I would not expect advanced
                                  > technology to do that<BR>
                                  > > >either.<BR>
                                  > > ><BR>
                                  > > >This reminds me of the brief discussion
                                  with
                                  > Chris Phoenix<BR>
                                  > > >about uploads, and this gives you some idea
                                  > of the<BR>
                                  > > >complexity of the economics behind all
                                  this.
                                  > Chris was<BR>
                                  > > >saying that "everyone" will be
                                  able
                                  > to upload, because, as<BR>
                                  > > >technology advances, it gets cheaper, and
                                  > eventually<BR>
                                  > > >everyone will be able to afford it. And I
                                  was
                                  > saying, wait<BR>
                                  > > >a minute, you're looking at only one half
                                  of
                                  > the equation,<BR>
                                  > > >the buying side. Technology also affects
                                  the
                                  > earning side.<BR>
                                  > > >If there are computers costing $1000 or
                                  $2000
                                  > that have<BR>
                                  > > >strong AI -- and can therefore do any job a
                                  > human can do --<BR>
                                  > > >will there be any jobs? So to keep up with
                                  > the machines,<BR>
                                  > > >everyone has to get cybernetic implants, so
                                  > their brains<BR>
                                  > > >can keep up with Moore's Law. And how much
                                  > does that<BR>
                                  > > >technology cost? What percentage of the
                                  > population will be<BR>
                                  > > >able to afford it? So you see, we're not
                                  just
                                  > talking about<BR>
                                  > > >how much technology costs to make and sell,
                                  > but how people<BR>
                                  > > >will earn the money to buy it -- how these
                                  > two factors will<BR>
                                  > > >fit together. That's pretty extremely hard
                                  to
                                  > predict with<BR>
                                  > > <BR>
                                  > === message truncated ===<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  >
                                  __________________________________________________<BR>
                                  > Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
                                  > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes<BR>
                                  > <a
                                  >
                                  href="http://finance.yahoo.com">http://finance.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                                  > </tt>
                                  >
                                  > <br>
                                  >
                                  > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                                  >
                                  > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                                  > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                                  > <td align=center><font size="-1"
                                  > color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
                                  Sponsor</b></font></td>
                                  > </tr>
                                  > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                                  > <td align=center width=470><table border=0
                                  > cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td
                                  align=center><font
                                  > face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
                                  >
                                  href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.2204139/D=egroupweb
                                  /S=1705890010:HM/A=1182692/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-
                                  1736-1039-334
                                  > " target="_top"><img border="0"
                                  >
                                  src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/co/columbiahouse/d_300x250_03
                                  1_4for49p_3.gif"
                                  > height="250" width="300"></a></td></tr></table></td>
                                  > </tr>
                                  > </table>
                                  >
                                  > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > <br>
                                  > <tt>
                                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
                                  to:<BR>
                                  > bafuture-unsubscribe@y...<BR>
                                  > <BR>
                                  > </tt>
                                  > <br>
                                  >
                                  > <br>
                                  > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                                  > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo!
                                  Terms
                                  > of Service</a>.</tt>
                                  > </br>
                                  >
                                  > </body></html>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  ___________________________________________________________
                                  > Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et
                                  en français !
                                  > Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com


                                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                                  Terms of Service.

                                  ___________________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
                                  Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.