Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
*sigh*
The only thing your chart proves is that applying Moore's Law to PG production is a waste of time.
From the apparent perspective of your comments, this entire discussion would be considered a waste of time, so I'm wondering at the point of all you have said here.
1991 is NOT when production started.
Note the elimination of the word "regular" from "regular production." This sort of misquoting is hard on the reputation of the speaker.
It is not when PG started.
It is when PG first started a goal of regularly increasing production.
It is just the point in time you chose as the starting point to attach Moore's Law.
It is the starting point of attaching ANY kind of predictive PG goals. Moore's Law just happened to be handy, and to fit with what I though Project Gutenberg could do in the future. All in all, it's been remarkable how well starting Moore's Law from 1991 has worked. I keep asking for a better model of prediction, and having to spend my time proving how inelegantly the suggested years work out when the equations are actually moved from their elegant non-numerical form into real numbers that are obviously out of the realm of reality.
What people are saying is this:
MOORE'S LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO PG PRODUCTION.
Then why does it fit with reality so much better than anything else?
WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF JUST ANNOUNCING WE HAVE "X" NUMBER OF TEXTS INSTEAD OF COMPARING IT TO A "LAW" THAT ISN'T EVEN MEANT TO BE USED THIS WAY.
There have been many technical reports filed on who should be able to use Moore's Law, in which manners it should be used, what fields it should and should not be allowed to be used in. . . but the reality of the situation is that Moore's Law has been out of the realm of the technical experts for most of its history, and you can't just stuff it back in the bottle.
Admit it, Michael, 1991 is just an arbritrary date.
Again I refer you to the opening definitions of arbitrary.
Just because "regular production" started in 1991 ... bull.
Ah, now you use the accurate quotation, and have lost your language skills.
We had regular, once a year, production before that.
If we take your statement of half truth at face value, by your count 1971 to 1990 would then yield 20 entries. Again, focusing only oh a half truth, leaving out the rest, digs you further into a hole. 9 years of "regular, once a year, production before that" followed by 11 years in which only one number was added, includes both halves of your truth, and also indicates why 1991 is the first year from which to make projections. At least projections that are not linear, at best. * However, the real point is that all this information has been presented before, then reflected back in distortion, which I have taken time to very politely refute, time and time again, without resorting to attacking the person and not the ideas presented, and suggesting how the argument might be better made to successfully make your points. Obvious attempts have been made to make this personal, which have been ignored, and the most obvious attempt is to remove any measuring stick for our progress. As with the failed suggested models of starting 1971 and 1993 as the best baselines for Moore's Law, the idea of removing any such yardstick at all is merely a ploy to remove any objective measurement standard. Whether we meet such a standard, exceed it, or even fall short of it, it is always handy to have such a standard so we know something about where are are, where we came from, and where we are going. Michael