Forwarded message:

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:16:15 -0800 From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net> Subject: Re: New technology around the corner [slashdot.org]

No, I don't think we're on any kind of cusp of a growth curve. If anything, several things are slowing down.

Stricly speaking I would agree, we are *past* the cusp and on the upward rush of the technology curve.

Beware the "press release." The items above are just a few of literally thousands of such announcements.

Exactly! Only look at what people are actualy *doing* and not what they are predicting. It's one of the reasons the vast majority of forwards in the technology forum I send here are about things that have succeeded.

Remember how "laser pantography" was going to revolutionize chip-making, and even make "back yard fabs" possible?

While the concept of a backyard fab has been pretty much blown out of the water what *has* come around and *wasn't* predicted is the growth of fab-less chip design companies. If you look at how these sorts of businesses have grown since the late 80's onward it is astounding some of the custom chips these firms are willing to design and get built through renting others spare fab bandwidth.

How about "silicon on sapphire" and how it would obsolete Integrated Injection Logic? (You don't remember I-squared L? Shame on you, as it was scheduled to put Intel out of business by 1976).

SoS technology was always predicted to win the game *if* the issues of thermal expansion between the Silicon and Sapphire could be resolved. Also, just as with Josephson Junction devices, other methods to achieve the same levels of predicted performance at less cost were devloped. There must be technologies that fail for there to be technologies to win. Simply pointing at the failed ones as an example of why it can't happen is a strategy that is doomed. There will always be some turk who has the self-confidence to say it can be done and then does it.

Or how about plastic cubes that can store terabytes. Or wafer scale integration. Or e-beam addressed memory. Or neural networks. Or fuzzy logic.

All of these technologies are out there. They haven't reached a point where they're mature for a variety of reasons. Let's look at Terabyte storage for a moment. Consider that the largest data bases on the planet are only a few *hundred* Terebytes and of them there are only a few 10's of thousands. Perhaps the reason the market hasn't taken off in this area is because the market isn't large enough. Give it another 5-10 years so that computers have become pervasive in schools, play, home, business, etc. (and no they are not pervasive now) and the market forces to drive new material releases on CD or other long-term media as the *primary* media (paper being so now) *and* there becomes a market for the re-release of past books and material then we'll begin to see a reason for each of us to be carrying around tera-bytes of data. Fuzzy logic and neural networks resolve your telephone switching issues, are used to locate natural resources, filter intelligence data for threads, etc. They're even used in coffee makers and micro-waves now. e-beam addressed memory is a looser, and anyone with a clue back them would have said so as well. Too power hungry, physicaly a bitch to haul around in your shirt pocket, etc.

("Hey, Tim's being a negativist. My new rice cooker says it has fuzzy logic in it.")

See!

And then there's the whole universe of speculation about quantum computers,

I *strongly* suggest folks follow the Quantum Coupled Architecture developments over the next two years or so.

DNA computers, nanotechnology, etc.

These are new technologies that are only a decade or two old. Consider transisitors. The first FET transistor effects was discovered in the 30's but it wasn't until the 50's that we actualy managed to build a working BJT and several years after that till the FET based technology became feasible. And there have been some interesting advances in these fields. DES being cracked by a bio-logical computer a couple of years ago for example. The ARM technology as well as the ability to not only understand but manipulate the genetics and mechanics of nano-technology have only been around 5-10 years. These are new technologies that are at the 'terrible-two's' stages of development. It's clear they can do it, they just haven't figured out how. And in the process they're rambling around the house opening every cubbard and drawer dumping the contents out.

The fact is that R&D labs partly run on hype. And journalists are willing to interview researchers to generate stories.

Until it's a reality it's *always* hype. Asking the technology to prove it itself the first day is like asking a new born baby to talk or recite Shakespeare. It's unreasonably demanding and self-deluding.

A particularly interesting place to read about all the Latest and Greatest technologies destined to replace silicon is "Electronic Engineering Times."

You can see some pretty funny predictions in the Enquirer also... It's a good thing to have an open mind, just not so open it sloshes out on the ground.

But I don't get overly excited by announcements of new developments like this. Perhaps following the industry for 25 years has made me jaded.

From the stories of your personality and the demonstrations I've seen you're a born cynic.

The street finds its own uses for technology. William Gibson ____________________________________________________________________ | | | When a man assumes a public trust, he should | | consider himself public property. | | | | Thomas Jefferson | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|