<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_2022244</id>
	<title>The Ultimate Limit of Moore's Law</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255426740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>BuzzSkyline writes <i>"Physicists have found that there is an <a href="http://www.insidescience.org/research/computers\_faster\_only\_for\_75\_more\_years">ultimate limit to the speed of calculations</a>, regardless of any improvements in technology. According to the researchers who found the computation limit, the bound 'poses an absolute law of nature, just like the speed of light.' While many experts expect technological limits to kick in eventually, engineers always seem to find ways around such roadblocks. If the physicists are right, though, no technology could ever beat the ultimate limit they've calculated &mdash; which is about 10^16 times faster than today's fastest machines. At the current Moore's Law pace, computational speeds will hit the wall in 75 to 80 years. A paper describing the analysis, which relies on thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and information theory, appeared in a recent issue of <em>Physical Review Letters</em> (<a href="http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.110502">abstract here</a>)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>BuzzSkyline writes " Physicists have found that there is an ultimate limit to the speed of calculations , regardless of any improvements in technology .
According to the researchers who found the computation limit , the bound 'poses an absolute law of nature , just like the speed of light .
' While many experts expect technological limits to kick in eventually , engineers always seem to find ways around such roadblocks .
If the physicists are right , though , no technology could ever beat the ultimate limit they 've calculated    which is about 10 ^ 16 times faster than today 's fastest machines .
At the current Moore 's Law pace , computational speeds will hit the wall in 75 to 80 years .
A paper describing the analysis , which relies on thermodynamics , quantum mechanics , and information theory , appeared in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters ( abstract here ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BuzzSkyline writes "Physicists have found that there is an ultimate limit to the speed of calculations, regardless of any improvements in technology.
According to the researchers who found the computation limit, the bound 'poses an absolute law of nature, just like the speed of light.
' While many experts expect technological limits to kick in eventually, engineers always seem to find ways around such roadblocks.
If the physicists are right, though, no technology could ever beat the ultimate limit they've calculated — which is about 10^16 times faster than today's fastest machines.
At the current Moore's Law pace, computational speeds will hit the wall in 75 to 80 years.
A paper describing the analysis, which relies on thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and information theory, appeared in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters (abstract here).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29746857</id>
	<title>Wow that's fast...</title>
	<author>ZERO1ZERO</author>
	<datestamp>1255544220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If the physicists are right, though, no technology could ever beat the ultimate limit they've calculated  which is about 10^16 times faster than today's fastest machines</i> <p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but can it run Vista?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the physicists are right , though , no technology could ever beat the ultimate limit they 've calculated which is about 10 ^ 16 times faster than today 's fastest machines ...but can it run Vista ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the physicists are right, though, no technology could ever beat the ultimate limit they've calculated  which is about 10^16 times faster than today's fastest machines  ...but can it run Vista?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738939</id>
	<title>Re:Physicists said we could not exceed 2400 baud t</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1255436520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We haven't given up on phone lines.... DSL gets a hell of a lot faster than 56kbps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have n't given up on phone lines.... DSL gets a hell of a lot faster than 56kbps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We haven't given up on phone lines.... DSL gets a hell of a lot faster than 56kbps</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739039</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Straterra</author>
	<datestamp>1255437180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I hear, the cake is a lie..
<br> <br>
Just warning ya!</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I hear , the cake is a lie. . Just warning ya !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I hear, the cake is a lie..
 
Just warning ya!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737869</id>
	<title>No worry, we'll never get close</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1255431120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the overhead of DRM and other measures that suck cpu cycles on a heavy basis, we'll never get close to the limit. Can we get a new Moore's law, one that includes the DRM tax on our CPU cycles?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the overhead of DRM and other measures that suck cpu cycles on a heavy basis , we 'll never get close to the limit .
Can we get a new Moore 's law , one that includes the DRM tax on our CPU cycles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the overhead of DRM and other measures that suck cpu cycles on a heavy basis, we'll never get close to the limit.
Can we get a new Moore's law, one that includes the DRM tax on our CPU cycles?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740003</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!!</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1255444560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first 3 GHz Xeon (Prestonia) was based on a 130nm process and had 55 million transistors That was in 2003.</p><p>The current 3GHz Xeon (Gainstowne) is based on  a 45 nm process and has 731 million transistors.</p><p>Maybe you're thinking of a different Moore's law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first 3 GHz Xeon ( Prestonia ) was based on a 130nm process and had 55 million transistors That was in 2003.The current 3GHz Xeon ( Gainstowne ) is based on a 45 nm process and has 731 million transistors.Maybe you 're thinking of a different Moore 's law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first 3 GHz Xeon (Prestonia) was based on a 130nm process and had 55 million transistors That was in 2003.The current 3GHz Xeon (Gainstowne) is based on  a 45 nm process and has 731 million transistors.Maybe you're thinking of a different Moore's law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737865</id>
	<title>Are there really limits?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   Though there might be a limit on how fast a computation can go, I would think that<br>parallel systems will boost that far beyond whatever limit there may be.  If we crash<br>into a boundary, multiple systems--or hundreds of thousands of them--will continue<br>the upward trend.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I suppose there is also the question of whether 10^16 more computing power "ought<br>to be enough for anybody".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though there might be a limit on how fast a computation can go , I would think thatparallel systems will boost that far beyond whatever limit there may be .
If we crashinto a boundary , multiple systems--or hundreds of thousands of them--will continuethe upward trend .
      I suppose there is also the question of whether 10 ^ 16 more computing power " oughtto be enough for anybody " .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Though there might be a limit on how fast a computation can go, I would think thatparallel systems will boost that far beyond whatever limit there may be.
If we crashinto a boundary, multiple systems--or hundreds of thousands of them--will continuethe upward trend.
      I suppose there is also the question of whether 10^16 more computing power "oughtto be enough for anybody".
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738753</id>
	<title>There Is No Limit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255435200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After you have built the machine that cannot possibly be made any faster, then you build more and distribute your problems among them.<br>"Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." - Moore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After you have built the machine that can not possibly be made any faster , then you build more and distribute your problems among them .
" Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated .
" - Moore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After you have built the machine that cannot possibly be made any faster, then you build more and distribute your problems among them.
"Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.
" - Moore</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738575</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255434300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cake is a lie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cake is a lie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cake is a lie</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739391</id>
	<title>How many ways is TFA wrong..let me count them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255439940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a perfect quantum computer spits out ten quadrillion more operations each second than today's fastest processors"</p><p>Its pointless to compare quantum processor operations with todays CPUs.<br>CPUs operate in terms of single operations with fixed complexity per second.  Quantum CPUs can perform single search operations of complexity 2^qbits per cycle.</p><p>We don't know enough about quantum phyics to know if its even possible to EVER build useful quantum computers let alone this crazy notion of going around peddling theoretical maximums.</p><p>The information propogation limit "C" is roughly 1 FT per nanosecond.  Even with three dimensional component stacking and mystical use of single atoms as transisters and you've already more than made up for any practical information limit based on thermal noise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a perfect quantum computer spits out ten quadrillion more operations each second than today 's fastest processors " Its pointless to compare quantum processor operations with todays CPUs.CPUs operate in terms of single operations with fixed complexity per second .
Quantum CPUs can perform single search operations of complexity 2 ^ qbits per cycle.We do n't know enough about quantum phyics to know if its even possible to EVER build useful quantum computers let alone this crazy notion of going around peddling theoretical maximums.The information propogation limit " C " is roughly 1 FT per nanosecond .
Even with three dimensional component stacking and mystical use of single atoms as transisters and you 've already more than made up for any practical information limit based on thermal noise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a perfect quantum computer spits out ten quadrillion more operations each second than today's fastest processors"Its pointless to compare quantum processor operations with todays CPUs.CPUs operate in terms of single operations with fixed complexity per second.
Quantum CPUs can perform single search operations of complexity 2^qbits per cycle.We don't know enough about quantum phyics to know if its even possible to EVER build useful quantum computers let alone this crazy notion of going around peddling theoretical maximums.The information propogation limit "C" is roughly 1 FT per nanosecond.
Even with three dimensional component stacking and mystical use of single atoms as transisters and you've already more than made up for any practical information limit based on thermal noise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747653</id>
	<title>Re:Subspace FTL field</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1255547700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall a short story of a "US vs USSR" style chess championship (or "Deep Blue" vs another computer...).  Each side put up their best computer for the contest.</p><p>One side had an ace in the hole, though...   they had developed a field that sped up the passage of time.  Set a computer in it, and it could calculate all possible moves from a given position in a reasonable amount of time.</p><p>So:</p><p>Our heros' computer made an opening move.<br>The foe's computer, able to calculate all possible moves from that position, resigned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall a short story of a " US vs USSR " style chess championship ( or " Deep Blue " vs another computer... ) .
Each side put up their best computer for the contest.One side had an ace in the hole , though... they had developed a field that sped up the passage of time .
Set a computer in it , and it could calculate all possible moves from a given position in a reasonable amount of time.So : Our heros ' computer made an opening move.The foe 's computer , able to calculate all possible moves from that position , resigned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall a short story of a "US vs USSR" style chess championship (or "Deep Blue" vs another computer...).
Each side put up their best computer for the contest.One side had an ace in the hole, though...   they had developed a field that sped up the passage of time.
Set a computer in it, and it could calculate all possible moves from a given position in a reasonable amount of time.So:Our heros' computer made an opening move.The foe's computer, able to calculate all possible moves from that position, resigned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738945</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>juancnuno</author>
	<datestamp>1255436520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hardware <em>does</em> tend to be much cheaper than engineering</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware does tend to be much cheaper than engineering</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware does tend to be much cheaper than engineering</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738853</id>
	<title>Implications for Ultimate Limits</title>
	<author>Vector Meson</author>
	<datestamp>1255435800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is from 2007 but I guess it's news to most nerds.<br>Arxiv link: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701237" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701237</a> [arxiv.org]</p><p>Now we just need to figure out if this has any impact on Ultimate Physical Limits of Computation  as linked to in LWN: <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/286233/" title="lwn.net" rel="nofollow">http://lwn.net/Articles/286233/</a> [lwn.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is from 2007 but I guess it 's news to most nerds.Arxiv link : http : //arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701237 [ arxiv.org ] Now we just need to figure out if this has any impact on Ultimate Physical Limits of Computation as linked to in LWN : http : //lwn.net/Articles/286233/ [ lwn.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is from 2007 but I guess it's news to most nerds.Arxiv link: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701237 [arxiv.org]Now we just need to figure out if this has any impact on Ultimate Physical Limits of Computation  as linked to in LWN: http://lwn.net/Articles/286233/ [lwn.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738685</id>
	<title>Re:Computing to what end</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255434840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Long before then it's seems I/O bottlenecks are going to be a much bigger issue for any *interesting* problems.</p></div><p>A supercomputer is a device for converting a compute bound problem into an I/O bound problem.</p><p>But in all seriousness, there are problems that can use that much computing power. Let's take one for example: You have a disease we don't know how to cure. So we create a simulation of you at a molecular level, and then randomly (or better, heuristically) generate chemicals and simulate their effect. Give it enough cycles and it will find one that cures the disease, no? But you'd better have a whole lot of cycles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Long before then it 's seems I/O bottlenecks are going to be a much bigger issue for any * interesting * problems.A supercomputer is a device for converting a compute bound problem into an I/O bound problem.But in all seriousness , there are problems that can use that much computing power .
Let 's take one for example : You have a disease we do n't know how to cure .
So we create a simulation of you at a molecular level , and then randomly ( or better , heuristically ) generate chemicals and simulate their effect .
Give it enough cycles and it will find one that cures the disease , no ?
But you 'd better have a whole lot of cycles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long before then it's seems I/O bottlenecks are going to be a much bigger issue for any *interesting* problems.A supercomputer is a device for converting a compute bound problem into an I/O bound problem.But in all seriousness, there are problems that can use that much computing power.
Let's take one for example: You have a disease we don't know how to cure.
So we create a simulation of you at a molecular level, and then randomly (or better, heuristically) generate chemicals and simulate their effect.
Give it enough cycles and it will find one that cures the disease, no?
But you'd better have a whole lot of cycles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741119</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255455000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that is a maximum limit on irreversible computations.  That doesn't apply to reversible computations that are used in a quantum computer.  This result is a theoretical limit on reversible computations, and is therefore a different result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that is a maximum limit on irreversible computations .
That does n't apply to reversible computations that are used in a quantum computer .
This result is a theoretical limit on reversible computations , and is therefore a different result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that is a maximum limit on irreversible computations.
That doesn't apply to reversible computations that are used in a quantum computer.
This result is a theoretical limit on reversible computations, and is therefore a different result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742065</id>
	<title>And then, five seconds later</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1255512180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Five seconds later, an equation describing the universe as fractal and infinitely divisible surfaces, and Moore's law continues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Five seconds later , an equation describing the universe as fractal and infinitely divisible surfaces , and Moore 's law continues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Five seconds later, an equation describing the universe as fractal and infinitely divisible surfaces, and Moore's law continues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29744845</id>
	<title>Re:Form over function</title>
	<author>Parasome</author>
	<datestamp>1255535580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only if all states would be necessary for a simulation. Non-random information (needed for a simulation) can generally be <i>represented</i> using less (compressed) information, and the universe is apparently not "random", but exhibits a great deal of structure. I do not mean to say that simulation would be possible, but I think your argument does not prove otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if all states would be necessary for a simulation .
Non-random information ( needed for a simulation ) can generally be represented using less ( compressed ) information , and the universe is apparently not " random " , but exhibits a great deal of structure .
I do not mean to say that simulation would be possible , but I think your argument does not prove otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if all states would be necessary for a simulation.
Non-random information (needed for a simulation) can generally be represented using less (compressed) information, and the universe is apparently not "random", but exhibits a great deal of structure.
I do not mean to say that simulation would be possible, but I think your argument does not prove otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740253</id>
	<title>Re:Passing the buck</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1255446840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the singularity might accidentally the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the singularity might accidentally the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the singularity might accidentally the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049</id>
	<title>Computing to what end</title>
	<author>belthize</author>
	<datestamp>1255431780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more computational power than 10^16 above what we have now.</p><p>I'd be interested in hearing of a problem that can be posited now but can't be solved in a reasonable amount of time (say a few days) with that much computational power.   I'm sure there are mathematical oddities or encryption schemes that can chew up all free cycles but it doesn't seem like raw computation is the limiting factor for most problems.</p><p>Long before then it's seems I/O bottlenecks are going to be a much bigger issue for any *interesting* problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more computational power than 10 ^ 16 above what we have now.I 'd be interested in hearing of a problem that can be posited now but ca n't be solved in a reasonable amount of time ( say a few days ) with that much computational power .
I 'm sure there are mathematical oddities or encryption schemes that can chew up all free cycles but it does n't seem like raw computation is the limiting factor for most problems.Long before then it 's seems I/O bottlenecks are going to be a much bigger issue for any * interesting * problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more computational power than 10^16 above what we have now.I'd be interested in hearing of a problem that can be posited now but can't be solved in a reasonable amount of time (say a few days) with that much computational power.
I'm sure there are mathematical oddities or encryption schemes that can chew up all free cycles but it doesn't seem like raw computation is the limiting factor for most problems.Long before then it's seems I/O bottlenecks are going to be a much bigger issue for any *interesting* problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742009</id>
	<title>There is also limit to that</title>
	<author>abies</author>
	<datestamp>1255511700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a sf book which explores this concept in more detail.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfekcyjna\_niedoskona\%C5\%82o\%C5\%9B\%C4\%87" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfekcyjna\_niedoskona\%C5\%82o\%C5\%9B\%C4\%87</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Idea is that you create Ultimate Computer which is best thing you can get with current laws of physic. Then, you start to create different universes (or 'inclusions' as named in the book) with 'better' laws of physics and build better computers there (and 'outsource' the computation). At some point you will reach Ultimate Inclusion (best combination of laws of physics for the best computer). Fortunately, around that point, you are supposed to evolve enough to not care anymore...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a sf book which explores this concept in more detail.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfekcyjna \ _niedoskona \ % C5 \ % 82o \ % C5 \ % 9B \ % C4 \ % 87 [ wikipedia.org ] Idea is that you create Ultimate Computer which is best thing you can get with current laws of physic .
Then , you start to create different universes ( or 'inclusions ' as named in the book ) with 'better ' laws of physics and build better computers there ( and 'outsource ' the computation ) .
At some point you will reach Ultimate Inclusion ( best combination of laws of physics for the best computer ) .
Fortunately , around that point , you are supposed to evolve enough to not care anymore.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a sf book which explores this concept in more detail.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfekcyjna\_niedoskona\%C5\%82o\%C5\%9B\%C4\%87 [wikipedia.org]Idea is that you create Ultimate Computer which is best thing you can get with current laws of physic.
Then, you start to create different universes (or 'inclusions' as named in the book) with 'better' laws of physics and build better computers there (and 'outsource' the computation).
At some point you will reach Ultimate Inclusion (best combination of laws of physics for the best computer).
Fortunately, around that point, you are supposed to evolve enough to not care anymore...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739663</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1255442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to demonstrate that they picked the right tactic. At least for the next 70 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to demonstrate that they picked the right tactic .
At least for the next 70 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to demonstrate that they picked the right tactic.
At least for the next 70 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740207</id>
	<title>New article, old subject</title>
	<author>maXXwell</author>
	<datestamp>1255446360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This topic has been visited numerous times.  A particularly good article on theoretical computational limits appeared in Nature in 2000:</p><p>Lloyd, Seth. "Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation". Nature 406, pp. 1047-1053 (31 August 2000)</p><p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6799/full/4061047a0.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6799/full/4061047a0.html</a> [nature.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This topic has been visited numerous times .
A particularly good article on theoretical computational limits appeared in Nature in 2000 : Lloyd , Seth .
" Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation " .
Nature 406 , pp .
1047-1053 ( 31 August 2000 ) http : //www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6799/full/4061047a0.html [ nature.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This topic has been visited numerous times.
A particularly good article on theoretical computational limits appeared in Nature in 2000:Lloyd, Seth.
"Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation".
Nature 406, pp.
1047-1053 (31 August 2000)http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6799/full/4061047a0.html [nature.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738275</id>
	<title>Re:Form over function</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1255432920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make sure to NOT handle the recursion!</p><p><tt><br>public static void main Simulate(Universe){</tt></p><p><tt>
&nbsp; &nbsp; universe Universe = getUniverse();</tt></p><p><tt>
&nbsp; &nbsp; for(BigInteger i = BigInteger.valueOf(0); i &lt; Universe.NumOfObjects; i++){<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if(Universe.getObject(i) == THIS)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <b>bailOut();</b><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; else<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; simulateObject(Universe.getObject(i));<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; }</tt></p><p><tt>
&nbsp; &nbsp; System.exit(42);<br>}</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make sure to NOT handle the recursion ! public static void main Simulate ( Universe ) {     universe Universe = getUniverse ( ) ;     for ( BigInteger i = BigInteger.valueOf ( 0 ) ; i         if ( Universe.getObject ( i ) = = THIS )             bailOut ( ) ;         else             simulateObject ( Universe.getObject ( i ) ) ;     }     System.exit ( 42 ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make sure to NOT handle the recursion!public static void main Simulate(Universe){
    universe Universe = getUniverse();
    for(BigInteger i = BigInteger.valueOf(0); i 
        if(Universe.getObject(i) == THIS)
            bailOut();
        else
            simulateObject(Universe.getObject(i));
    }
    System.exit(42);}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29751639</id>
	<title>Re:Passing the buck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255525620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer to the problem is just to slow down our perception of time by transferring into a simulation. Then we can violate any law of physics we want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to the problem is just to slow down our perception of time by transferring into a simulation .
Then we can violate any law of physics we want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to the problem is just to slow down our perception of time by transferring into a simulation.
Then we can violate any law of physics we want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741277</id>
	<title>Core it up</title>
	<author>DoktaDre</author>
	<datestamp>1255457460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no upper limit to the number of cores you can have...
or is there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no upper limit to the number of cores you can have.. . or is there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no upper limit to the number of cores you can have...
or is there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743003</id>
	<title>Never, ever say never!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Who'd want a computer at home?" - DEC CEO.<br>"Travelling faster than 5 mph will kill you!" - Anti-loco nutters 18th C.<br>"Splitting the atom and making enough energy to trigger a bomb is impossible." - Albert Einstein</p><p>Never, ever say never!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Who 'd want a computer at home ?
" - DEC CEO .
" Travelling faster than 5 mph will kill you !
" - Anti-loco nutters 18th C. " Splitting the atom and making enough energy to trigger a bomb is impossible .
" - Albert EinsteinNever , ever say never !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Who'd want a computer at home?
" - DEC CEO.
"Travelling faster than 5 mph will kill you!
" - Anti-loco nutters 18th C."Splitting the atom and making enough energy to trigger a bomb is impossible.
" - Albert EinsteinNever, ever say never!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29750371</id>
	<title>Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1255516680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correction, that should be Gordon's observation, not Thomas'.  I'm sure a lot of people called Thomas have observed a lot of important things, but this isn't one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction , that should be Gordon 's observation , not Thomas' .
I 'm sure a lot of people called Thomas have observed a lot of important things , but this is n't one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction, that should be Gordon's observation, not Thomas'.
I'm sure a lot of people called Thomas have observed a lot of important things, but this isn't one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738355</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>ijakings</author>
	<datestamp>1255433160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Computations Per Library of Congress</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computations Per Library of Congress</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computations Per Library of Congress</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29750411</id>
	<title>Re:Electricity cost comes first...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255516980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running a conducting cable seems like a very good idea! That is, if you want to melt some cable.</p><p>Luckily enough the sun already blasts us with more then enough energy on a daily basis, so going through all that hassle just to heat up a cable isn't really necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running a conducting cable seems like a very good idea !
That is , if you want to melt some cable.Luckily enough the sun already blasts us with more then enough energy on a daily basis , so going through all that hassle just to heat up a cable is n't really necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running a conducting cable seems like a very good idea!
That is, if you want to melt some cable.Luckily enough the sun already blasts us with more then enough energy on a daily basis, so going through all that hassle just to heat up a cable isn't really necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737813</id>
	<title>JUST like the speed of light.</title>
	<author>History's Coming To</author>
	<datestamp>1255430940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't <i>like</i> the speed of light, it is quite possibly the reason for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't like the speed of light , it is quite possibly the reason for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't like the speed of light, it is quite possibly the reason for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29755335</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>mhwombat</author>
	<datestamp>1255611000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I can give you my understanding from reading it. The rate R they use is quantum operations per second. I believe that there are only equations in the paper because you have to assume some input numbers in order to get ouput numbers. I don't know what assumptions they made to get the numbers in the article.
</p><p>
I think Equation 8 is a good example because it's about qbits and quantum operations. I'm afraid I don't know a good way to get equations into<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., but it's
</p><p>
Q = h R^2 e / 2
</p><p>
In the paper that <i>e</i> is actually an epsilon. Here Q is the heat dissipated per unit of time, R is the number of quantum operations per unit of time, h is Planck's constant and e is the probability of error (i.e. errors per operation).
</p><p>
Hence if your quantum computer is error-free, it doesn't interact with its environment, doesn't dissipate heat, and this "limit" is no problem. But otherwise, the heat dissipated goes up quadratically and it's going to impose a limit. How big a limit depends how much heat you can cope with and what your error rate is. It doesn't seem to give some kind of fundamental hard limit to computing speed analogous to the speed of light, as the summary suggests.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can give you my understanding from reading it .
The rate R they use is quantum operations per second .
I believe that there are only equations in the paper because you have to assume some input numbers in order to get ouput numbers .
I do n't know what assumptions they made to get the numbers in the article .
I think Equation 8 is a good example because it 's about qbits and quantum operations .
I 'm afraid I do n't know a good way to get equations into /. , but it 's Q = h R ^ 2 e / 2 In the paper that e is actually an epsilon .
Here Q is the heat dissipated per unit of time , R is the number of quantum operations per unit of time , h is Planck 's constant and e is the probability of error ( i.e .
errors per operation ) .
Hence if your quantum computer is error-free , it does n't interact with its environment , does n't dissipate heat , and this " limit " is no problem .
But otherwise , the heat dissipated goes up quadratically and it 's going to impose a limit .
How big a limit depends how much heat you can cope with and what your error rate is .
It does n't seem to give some kind of fundamental hard limit to computing speed analogous to the speed of light , as the summary suggests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I can give you my understanding from reading it.
The rate R they use is quantum operations per second.
I believe that there are only equations in the paper because you have to assume some input numbers in order to get ouput numbers.
I don't know what assumptions they made to get the numbers in the article.
I think Equation 8 is a good example because it's about qbits and quantum operations.
I'm afraid I don't know a good way to get equations into /., but it's

Q = h R^2 e / 2

In the paper that e is actually an epsilon.
Here Q is the heat dissipated per unit of time, R is the number of quantum operations per unit of time, h is Planck's constant and e is the probability of error (i.e.
errors per operation).
Hence if your quantum computer is error-free, it doesn't interact with its environment, doesn't dissipate heat, and this "limit" is no problem.
But otherwise, the heat dissipated goes up quadratically and it's going to impose a limit.
How big a limit depends how much heat you can cope with and what your error rate is.
It doesn't seem to give some kind of fundamental hard limit to computing speed analogous to the speed of light, as the summary suggests.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738137</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the tester uses ambiguous language and you use that to try to prove an unrelated point?<br>If by 'you' you meant any part of the body then the engineer moving his hand all the way to the cake disregards the rules.<br>Here, here's an example http://xkcd.com/169/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the tester uses ambiguous language and you use that to try to prove an unrelated point ? If by 'you ' you meant any part of the body then the engineer moving his hand all the way to the cake disregards the rules.Here , here 's an example http : //xkcd.com/169/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the tester uses ambiguous language and you use that to try to prove an unrelated point?If by 'you' you meant any part of the body then the engineer moving his hand all the way to the cake disregards the rules.Here, here's an example http://xkcd.com/169/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739453</id>
	<title>This is kinda...low-ball, isn't it?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1255440420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long has this law been continuing? 30 years? So then to act like journalists and say "one day it'll end" (after the reporter's dead and gone!) is kinda stupid, don't ya think?</p><p>It reminds me of those people, just TRYING to keep a panic: "Eventually our planets will collide!" (Not mentioning it's like 12,000,000,000 years from now, plenty of time to buy off-world tickets.)</p><p>Why do we keep getting these non-news stories? Why must they all be so un-grounded.  What happened to fact-checking?</p><p>These guys can't prove this any more than the entire *world* of guys could PROVE an end to Moore's law over the last 30 years.  So to say, long after we're dead (and is meaningless) that it will end....so gutless.</p><p>It's just as bogus as this latest round of "Rush Limbaugh is racist" stories lately.  Rush is difficult to interview:</p><p>-The second-largest radio show on the planet,<br>-Three hours a day<br>-Five days a week<br>-In it's 21st year of operation<br>-Costs nothing to tune in and learn for one's self.</p><p>Yet, the media sources claiming him to be a bastard seem unable to attend a show. These "investigative reporters" and "balanced coverage" and "courage you can count on" guys run like little whiny babies when Rush is on, and don't know anything about him.</p><p>He's the most color-blind person I know. I've listed since about '89. NEVER have I heard him take pleasure in the ills of a black man. In fact, he's one of the biggest cheerleaders of giving them tools to advance with the rest of us....and then to the world!</p><p>Conservatism isn't racial hatred.</p><p>George Wallace wasn't conservative when he stood in that doorway, keeping negros out of college. (Remember Gump?) It wasn't conservatives using attack dogs or firehoses on negros: that was The National Democratic Party. Look it up.</p><p>My closest friend posted to Facebook: Limabaugh's gonna get an all-white team! That should make HIM happy!</p><p>I took him to task: don't make such statements- clearly you've never listened. "Oh, I did- I listen all the time.  I listen to him and Ann Coulter on her show, too!"</p><p>[She doesn't have a show: he's just lying because the TV and radio have told him what he's supposed to be like.]</p><p>Whatever happened to skepticism? Whatever happened to "prove it to me"? Can we not think for ourselves anymore?  We should be suing people that publish stories like this: media malpractice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long has this law been continuing ?
30 years ?
So then to act like journalists and say " one day it 'll end " ( after the reporter 's dead and gone !
) is kinda stupid , do n't ya think ? It reminds me of those people , just TRYING to keep a panic : " Eventually our planets will collide !
" ( Not mentioning it 's like 12,000,000,000 years from now , plenty of time to buy off-world tickets .
) Why do we keep getting these non-news stories ?
Why must they all be so un-grounded .
What happened to fact-checking ? These guys ca n't prove this any more than the entire * world * of guys could PROVE an end to Moore 's law over the last 30 years .
So to say , long after we 're dead ( and is meaningless ) that it will end....so gutless.It 's just as bogus as this latest round of " Rush Limbaugh is racist " stories lately .
Rush is difficult to interview : -The second-largest radio show on the planet,-Three hours a day-Five days a week-In it 's 21st year of operation-Costs nothing to tune in and learn for one 's self.Yet , the media sources claiming him to be a bastard seem unable to attend a show .
These " investigative reporters " and " balanced coverage " and " courage you can count on " guys run like little whiny babies when Rush is on , and do n't know anything about him.He 's the most color-blind person I know .
I 've listed since about '89 .
NEVER have I heard him take pleasure in the ills of a black man .
In fact , he 's one of the biggest cheerleaders of giving them tools to advance with the rest of us....and then to the world ! Conservatism is n't racial hatred.George Wallace was n't conservative when he stood in that doorway , keeping negros out of college .
( Remember Gump ?
) It was n't conservatives using attack dogs or firehoses on negros : that was The National Democratic Party .
Look it up.My closest friend posted to Facebook : Limabaugh 's gon na get an all-white team !
That should make HIM happy ! I took him to task : do n't make such statements- clearly you 've never listened .
" Oh , I did- I listen all the time .
I listen to him and Ann Coulter on her show , too !
" [ She does n't have a show : he 's just lying because the TV and radio have told him what he 's supposed to be like .
] Whatever happened to skepticism ?
Whatever happened to " prove it to me " ?
Can we not think for ourselves anymore ?
We should be suing people that publish stories like this : media malpractice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long has this law been continuing?
30 years?
So then to act like journalists and say "one day it'll end" (after the reporter's dead and gone!
) is kinda stupid, don't ya think?It reminds me of those people, just TRYING to keep a panic: "Eventually our planets will collide!
" (Not mentioning it's like 12,000,000,000 years from now, plenty of time to buy off-world tickets.
)Why do we keep getting these non-news stories?
Why must they all be so un-grounded.
What happened to fact-checking?These guys can't prove this any more than the entire *world* of guys could PROVE an end to Moore's law over the last 30 years.
So to say, long after we're dead (and is meaningless) that it will end....so gutless.It's just as bogus as this latest round of "Rush Limbaugh is racist" stories lately.
Rush is difficult to interview:-The second-largest radio show on the planet,-Three hours a day-Five days a week-In it's 21st year of operation-Costs nothing to tune in and learn for one's self.Yet, the media sources claiming him to be a bastard seem unable to attend a show.
These "investigative reporters" and "balanced coverage" and "courage you can count on" guys run like little whiny babies when Rush is on, and don't know anything about him.He's the most color-blind person I know.
I've listed since about '89.
NEVER have I heard him take pleasure in the ills of a black man.
In fact, he's one of the biggest cheerleaders of giving them tools to advance with the rest of us....and then to the world!Conservatism isn't racial hatred.George Wallace wasn't conservative when he stood in that doorway, keeping negros out of college.
(Remember Gump?
) It wasn't conservatives using attack dogs or firehoses on negros: that was The National Democratic Party.
Look it up.My closest friend posted to Facebook: Limabaugh's gonna get an all-white team!
That should make HIM happy!I took him to task: don't make such statements- clearly you've never listened.
"Oh, I did- I listen all the time.
I listen to him and Ann Coulter on her show, too!
"[She doesn't have a show: he's just lying because the TV and radio have told him what he's supposed to be like.
]Whatever happened to skepticism?
Whatever happened to "prove it to me"?
Can we not think for ourselves anymore?
We should be suing people that publish stories like this: media malpractice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737915</id>
	<title>Human Brain Anyone ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if someone would calculate the real capacity of a human brain and compare it to this limit.<br>That would mean that there are still ways to evolve, I'm assuming we are quite far from the limit,<br>and all the ideas about computers getting smarter then man will get a new twist. Since the maximum<br>computational abilities are limited, then the outcome is not as straightforward as most SciFi novels<br>potray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if someone would calculate the real capacity of a human brain and compare it to this limit.That would mean that there are still ways to evolve , I 'm assuming we are quite far from the limit,and all the ideas about computers getting smarter then man will get a new twist .
Since the maximumcomputational abilities are limited , then the outcome is not as straightforward as most SciFi novelspotray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if someone would calculate the real capacity of a human brain and compare it to this limit.That would mean that there are still ways to evolve, I'm assuming we are quite far from the limit,and all the ideas about computers getting smarter then man will get a new twist.
Since the maximumcomputational abilities are limited, then the outcome is not as straightforward as most SciFi novelspotray.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738667</id>
	<title>If by "immediately" there is a limit, then yes.</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1255434780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is imaginable that through some of that quantum black magic all possible answers are calculated instantaneously and the correct one selected at the same time and delivered upon query.  The bottleneck in that would be the speed in which the question can be presented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is imaginable that through some of that quantum black magic all possible answers are calculated instantaneously and the correct one selected at the same time and delivered upon query .
The bottleneck in that would be the speed in which the question can be presented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is imaginable that through some of that quantum black magic all possible answers are calculated instantaneously and the correct one selected at the same time and delivered upon query.
The bottleneck in that would be the speed in which the question can be presented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741419</id>
	<title>I used to think that</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255459380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in '81 when the US national debt passed a trillion dollars I did some forecasting and estimated that the debt escaped to infinity in 2012.  I was really scared about that for a long time.
</p><p>It's only with the advancements in 64 bit computing technologies that I can see the error I made: advances in our understanding of  numbers allow for ever-more absurd extentions of logarithmic growth.  The national debt is not even 11 trillion dollars now, and that's just the <i>debt</i>.  The government took on over 8 trillion dollars in unfunded obligations last year alone and it would be even more this year even without the healthcare fix.  The total unfunded obligations as of the start of this year were 63.8 trillion dollars, or over half a million dollars per household.  But those numbers now fit in my iPhone scientific calculator, so it's all good.
</p><p>Just like the budget is big numbers, the size of components is small numbers.  Sometime between now and 80 years from now we'll discover what the component parts of quarks are, and these quarklets will compose our transistors in some way we don't yet understand.  Likewise, by then my great grandkids will each owe nearly a trillion dollars of their own and the US debt will be in the septillions, but those numbers will comfortably fit in their 512bit cybernetic math implants so they'll be fine.
</p><p>That's just progress.  It took some getting used to, but it's not scary any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in '81 when the US national debt passed a trillion dollars I did some forecasting and estimated that the debt escaped to infinity in 2012 .
I was really scared about that for a long time .
It 's only with the advancements in 64 bit computing technologies that I can see the error I made : advances in our understanding of numbers allow for ever-more absurd extentions of logarithmic growth .
The national debt is not even 11 trillion dollars now , and that 's just the debt .
The government took on over 8 trillion dollars in unfunded obligations last year alone and it would be even more this year even without the healthcare fix .
The total unfunded obligations as of the start of this year were 63.8 trillion dollars , or over half a million dollars per household .
But those numbers now fit in my iPhone scientific calculator , so it 's all good .
Just like the budget is big numbers , the size of components is small numbers .
Sometime between now and 80 years from now we 'll discover what the component parts of quarks are , and these quarklets will compose our transistors in some way we do n't yet understand .
Likewise , by then my great grandkids will each owe nearly a trillion dollars of their own and the US debt will be in the septillions , but those numbers will comfortably fit in their 512bit cybernetic math implants so they 'll be fine .
That 's just progress .
It took some getting used to , but it 's not scary any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in '81 when the US national debt passed a trillion dollars I did some forecasting and estimated that the debt escaped to infinity in 2012.
I was really scared about that for a long time.
It's only with the advancements in 64 bit computing technologies that I can see the error I made: advances in our understanding of  numbers allow for ever-more absurd extentions of logarithmic growth.
The national debt is not even 11 trillion dollars now, and that's just the debt.
The government took on over 8 trillion dollars in unfunded obligations last year alone and it would be even more this year even without the healthcare fix.
The total unfunded obligations as of the start of this year were 63.8 trillion dollars, or over half a million dollars per household.
But those numbers now fit in my iPhone scientific calculator, so it's all good.
Just like the budget is big numbers, the size of components is small numbers.
Sometime between now and 80 years from now we'll discover what the component parts of quarks are, and these quarklets will compose our transistors in some way we don't yet understand.
Likewise, by then my great grandkids will each owe nearly a trillion dollars of their own and the US debt will be in the septillions, but those numbers will comfortably fit in their 512bit cybernetic math implants so they'll be fine.
That's just progress.
It took some getting used to, but it's not scary any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741623</id>
	<title>Just a thought</title>
	<author>marqs</author>
	<datestamp>1255462680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if we build the ultimate computer to answer the question of "Life, the universe and everything". <br>
What if said computer ponders the question for seven and a half million years, and then comes up with an answer close to but not quite exactly 42.
<br>
<br>
Then we know for sure that the CPU has it's own Pentium bug.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if we build the ultimate computer to answer the question of " Life , the universe and everything " .
What if said computer ponders the question for seven and a half million years , and then comes up with an answer close to but not quite exactly 42 .
Then we know for sure that the CPU has it 's own Pentium bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if we build the ultimate computer to answer the question of "Life, the universe and everything".
What if said computer ponders the question for seven and a half million years, and then comes up with an answer close to but not quite exactly 42.
Then we know for sure that the CPU has it's own Pentium bug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843</id>
	<title>No growth can go on forever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and no exponential growth can go on for just a comparatively very short time. This should be self-evident, but for some reason, people seem to ignore that. Especially people who call themselves journalists or economists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and no exponential growth can go on for just a comparatively very short time .
This should be self-evident , but for some reason , people seem to ignore that .
Especially people who call themselves journalists or economists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and no exponential growth can go on for just a comparatively very short time.
This should be self-evident, but for some reason, people seem to ignore that.
Especially people who call themselves journalists or economists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739567</id>
	<title>Re:Physicists said we could not exceed 2400 baud t</title>
	<author>TaliesinWI</author>
	<datestamp>1255441380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No they didn't.  Baud=bitrate only in 110/300 bps era modems.  9600bps (V.32) modems were at 2400 baud but using 4 bits per symbol.  Even in the post-1990 modems with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trellis\_modulation" title="wikipedia.org">trellis modulation</a> [wikipedia.org] the baudrate never cracked 3,429 but with V.34bis we were at 33.6kbps.  That was the absolute maximum on an analog-only phone line.  Anything past that (V.90/V.92) was one-directional PCM which you could only get away with because modern POTS lines are carried on a digital infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they did n't .
Baud = bitrate only in 110/300 bps era modems .
9600bps ( V.32 ) modems were at 2400 baud but using 4 bits per symbol .
Even in the post-1990 modems with trellis modulation [ wikipedia.org ] the baudrate never cracked 3,429 but with V.34bis we were at 33.6kbps .
That was the absolute maximum on an analog-only phone line .
Anything past that ( V.90/V.92 ) was one-directional PCM which you could only get away with because modern POTS lines are carried on a digital infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they didn't.
Baud=bitrate only in 110/300 bps era modems.
9600bps (V.32) modems were at 2400 baud but using 4 bits per symbol.
Even in the post-1990 modems with trellis modulation [wikipedia.org] the baudrate never cracked 3,429 but with V.34bis we were at 33.6kbps.
That was the absolute maximum on an analog-only phone line.
Anything past that (V.90/V.92) was one-directional PCM which you could only get away with because modern POTS lines are carried on a digital infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29745493</id>
	<title>Re:There Is No Limit</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1255538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well this thing is going to have a size, and one end of it is likely going to have to talk to the other end of it in most computations.   The fastest that communication can happen is the speed of light.  <p>At a very minimum, you aren't going to get an answer to your question any faster than it takes light to travel from the input port to the farthest point on the machine and back if you require that all sub computations have had an opportunity to interact with each other.</p><p>  Although this might not be a requirement.  You might want all solutions tried and to be notified when the first one succeeds.    If the questioner is outside the machine, then they will have much less speedy access to computation power than if they are at the machine's center for answering these questions.  The ideal would be to ask the question from the center of a sphere.
</p><p>For example, you might want to exhaustively search a solution space.  You would pose a query to the computer around you with each part trying a part of the space, and not notifying you unless it found the answer.  When a part finds an answer you get your reply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well this thing is going to have a size , and one end of it is likely going to have to talk to the other end of it in most computations .
The fastest that communication can happen is the speed of light .
At a very minimum , you are n't going to get an answer to your question any faster than it takes light to travel from the input port to the farthest point on the machine and back if you require that all sub computations have had an opportunity to interact with each other .
Although this might not be a requirement .
You might want all solutions tried and to be notified when the first one succeeds .
If the questioner is outside the machine , then they will have much less speedy access to computation power than if they are at the machine 's center for answering these questions .
The ideal would be to ask the question from the center of a sphere .
For example , you might want to exhaustively search a solution space .
You would pose a query to the computer around you with each part trying a part of the space , and not notifying you unless it found the answer .
When a part finds an answer you get your reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well this thing is going to have a size, and one end of it is likely going to have to talk to the other end of it in most computations.
The fastest that communication can happen is the speed of light.
At a very minimum, you aren't going to get an answer to your question any faster than it takes light to travel from the input port to the farthest point on the machine and back if you require that all sub computations have had an opportunity to interact with each other.
Although this might not be a requirement.
You might want all solutions tried and to be notified when the first one succeeds.
If the questioner is outside the machine, then they will have much less speedy access to computation power than if they are at the machine's center for answering these questions.
The ideal would be to ask the question from the center of a sphere.
For example, you might want to exhaustively search a solution space.
You would pose a query to the computer around you with each part trying a part of the space, and not notifying you unless it found the answer.
When a part finds an answer you get your reply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29753331</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else get the feeling...</title>
	<author>takapa</author>
	<datestamp>1255540440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to "compute" its own state?  That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit?  Once we hit the limit, our computations cease being simulations and become reality.</p></div><p>Agreed.

The 'laws' of the Universe can be said to operate at the smallest measure of x/y/z/planck-time/d5/d6/..... If the Universe has a smallest measure in each of these dimensions then there is a finite amount of time and space in the Universe, therefore a fixed amount of processing power. The Universe is simply playing out its rules at the smallest measure and we are happy byproducts of the process.

The Universe itself is the most efficient calculator that is possible in the Universe but the Universe has a finite amount of calculations before the state is forever flat at which point the Universe technically still exists but without any entropy, the Universe can be thought of as dead. That said, the Onmiverse has unlimited processing power but the calculations in those Universes as in our own take the form of realities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to " compute " its own state ?
That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit ?
Once we hit the limit , our computations cease being simulations and become reality.Agreed .
The 'laws ' of the Universe can be said to operate at the smallest measure of x/y/z/planck-time/d5/d6/..... If the Universe has a smallest measure in each of these dimensions then there is a finite amount of time and space in the Universe , therefore a fixed amount of processing power .
The Universe is simply playing out its rules at the smallest measure and we are happy byproducts of the process .
The Universe itself is the most efficient calculator that is possible in the Universe but the Universe has a finite amount of calculations before the state is forever flat at which point the Universe technically still exists but without any entropy , the Universe can be thought of as dead .
That said , the Onmiverse has unlimited processing power but the calculations in those Universes as in our own take the form of realities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to "compute" its own state?
That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit?
Once we hit the limit, our computations cease being simulations and become reality.Agreed.
The 'laws' of the Universe can be said to operate at the smallest measure of x/y/z/planck-time/d5/d6/..... If the Universe has a smallest measure in each of these dimensions then there is a finite amount of time and space in the Universe, therefore a fixed amount of processing power.
The Universe is simply playing out its rules at the smallest measure and we are happy byproducts of the process.
The Universe itself is the most efficient calculator that is possible in the Universe but the Universe has a finite amount of calculations before the state is forever flat at which point the Universe technically still exists but without any entropy, the Universe can be thought of as dead.
That said, the Onmiverse has unlimited processing power but the calculations in those Universes as in our own take the form of realities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739011</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(As an engineer...)</p><p>Nah, that's not breaking the rules.  After ten "moves", the eleventh move is simply to reach out and grab the treasure.  If you average out his body's movement, you'll find that he has not, actually, traversed farther than half way to the treasure.  Only a mathematician would consider the leading edge to be representative of the body, whereas an engineer would consider the centre of gravity to be representative (assume a spherical body... hey, no assumption required!), and thus there'd be no problem in reaching out to grab the treasure as long as his centre of gravity hasn't proceeded more than halfway between his previous location and the treasure.  Mind you, if it's very heavy treasure, this may be more difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( As an engineer... ) Nah , that 's not breaking the rules .
After ten " moves " , the eleventh move is simply to reach out and grab the treasure .
If you average out his body 's movement , you 'll find that he has not , actually , traversed farther than half way to the treasure .
Only a mathematician would consider the leading edge to be representative of the body , whereas an engineer would consider the centre of gravity to be representative ( assume a spherical body... hey , no assumption required !
) , and thus there 'd be no problem in reaching out to grab the treasure as long as his centre of gravity has n't proceeded more than halfway between his previous location and the treasure .
Mind you , if it 's very heavy treasure , this may be more difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(As an engineer...)Nah, that's not breaking the rules.
After ten "moves", the eleventh move is simply to reach out and grab the treasure.
If you average out his body's movement, you'll find that he has not, actually, traversed farther than half way to the treasure.
Only a mathematician would consider the leading edge to be representative of the body, whereas an engineer would consider the centre of gravity to be representative (assume a spherical body... hey, no assumption required!
), and thus there'd be no problem in reaching out to grab the treasure as long as his centre of gravity hasn't proceeded more than halfway between his previous location and the treasure.
Mind you, if it's very heavy treasure, this may be more difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739723</id>
	<title>Bah, that Number is just nonsense.</title>
	<author>Timmy D Programmer</author>
	<datestamp>1255442460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They just picked a number so darn high they would be long dead by the time it's proven wrong.    The reality is sooner or later somebody will approach getting more than a boolean out of a single transistor.  Of course 'that' probably won't be called a transistor, but you get the point.

So you run out of space, and still find a way to get more calculations per second.

In other words.  Bull Droppings!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They just picked a number so darn high they would be long dead by the time it 's proven wrong .
The reality is sooner or later somebody will approach getting more than a boolean out of a single transistor .
Of course 'that ' probably wo n't be called a transistor , but you get the point .
So you run out of space , and still find a way to get more calculations per second .
In other words .
Bull Droppings !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just picked a number so darn high they would be long dead by the time it's proven wrong.
The reality is sooner or later somebody will approach getting more than a boolean out of a single transistor.
Of course 'that' probably won't be called a transistor, but you get the point.
So you run out of space, and still find a way to get more calculations per second.
In other words.
Bull Droppings!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737775</id>
	<title>The problem is...</title>
	<author>FunkyRider</author>
	<datestamp>1255430820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether today's teenagers, or tomorrow's engineers, are capable of building such a machine. IMO all they know is EMO and shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether today 's teenagers , or tomorrow 's engineers , are capable of building such a machine .
IMO all they know is EMO and shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether today's teenagers, or tomorrow's engineers, are capable of building such a machine.
IMO all they know is EMO and shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737851</id>
	<title>Form over function</title>
	<author>Calmiche</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I figure it will be sort of like the netbook war of today.  Manufactures will realize that there isn't much of a way to get faster so they will start concentrating on design, reliability and lifespan.  It will probably be a golden age in computing.</p><p>I'm just waiting for a peta-hertz computer with a 500 exabyte hard-drive able to do universe simulations in real time that will fit in my pocket, go 100 years on a charge and be indestructible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure it will be sort of like the netbook war of today .
Manufactures will realize that there is n't much of a way to get faster so they will start concentrating on design , reliability and lifespan .
It will probably be a golden age in computing.I 'm just waiting for a peta-hertz computer with a 500 exabyte hard-drive able to do universe simulations in real time that will fit in my pocket , go 100 years on a charge and be indestructible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure it will be sort of like the netbook war of today.
Manufactures will realize that there isn't much of a way to get faster so they will start concentrating on design, reliability and lifespan.
It will probably be a golden age in computing.I'm just waiting for a peta-hertz computer with a 500 exabyte hard-drive able to do universe simulations in real time that will fit in my pocket, go 100 years on a charge and be indestructible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738231</id>
	<title>Fundamental time unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've been at roughly ~200ps per circuit operation for quite some time and yet processors are still getting faster. Parallel computation, what a novel idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been at roughly ~ 200ps per circuit operation for quite some time and yet processors are still getting faster .
Parallel computation , what a novel idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been at roughly ~200ps per circuit operation for quite some time and yet processors are still getting faster.
Parallel computation, what a novel idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737943</id>
	<title>Not as scary as it sounds</title>
	<author>Stratoukos</author>
	<datestamp>1255431420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary makes it sound like in 80 years there will be no room for improvement and everyone will just have to make do with what they have.</p><p>If I understand correctly, the limit is about the performance/volume (performance density?). I imagine that in 80 years most of computational resources will be somehow networked. This means that if I required more processing power than technically possible in a normal computer I could just use someone else's idle processor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary makes it sound like in 80 years there will be no room for improvement and everyone will just have to make do with what they have.If I understand correctly , the limit is about the performance/volume ( performance density ? ) .
I imagine that in 80 years most of computational resources will be somehow networked .
This means that if I required more processing power than technically possible in a normal computer I could just use someone else 's idle processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary makes it sound like in 80 years there will be no room for improvement and everyone will just have to make do with what they have.If I understand correctly, the limit is about the performance/volume (performance density?).
I imagine that in 80 years most of computational resources will be somehow networked.
This means that if I required more processing power than technically possible in a normal computer I could just use someone else's idle processor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693</id>
	<title>WHAT!!</title>
	<author>cryoman23</author>
	<datestamp>1255430520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>so in 80 years my computers processors wont be able to get any faster...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( o well then i guess its time to CLUSTER!</htmltext>
<tokenext>so in 80 years my computers processors wont be able to get any faster... : ( o well then i guess its time to CLUSTER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so in 80 years my computers processors wont be able to get any faster... :( o well then i guess its time to CLUSTER!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740829</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary journals</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1255451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should pay more attention to arXiv. Most research published these days is there. This article is. Which makes me wonder, why have they linked to PRL and not arXiv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should pay more attention to arXiv .
Most research published these days is there .
This article is .
Which makes me wonder , why have they linked to PRL and not arXiv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should pay more attention to arXiv.
Most research published these days is there.
This article is.
Which makes me wonder, why have they linked to PRL and not arXiv.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738625</id>
	<title>10^16 times faster than today's fastest machines</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1255434540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, until I hit the Turbo(tm) button! 11^16, baby! 11, because that's one more, isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , until I hit the Turbo ( tm ) button !
11 ^ 16 , baby !
11 , because that 's one more , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, until I hit the Turbo(tm) button!
11^16, baby!
11, because that's one more, isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737967</id>
	<title>Yeah, except for that quantum mechanics thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, this may be the currently known limit but I imagine there are more than a few things that will be discovered in the next 80 years.</p><p>Besides that, quantum computing will very likely obsolete the way we currently calculate how fast something is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this may be the currently known limit but I imagine there are more than a few things that will be discovered in the next 80 years.Besides that , quantum computing will very likely obsolete the way we currently calculate how fast something is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this may be the currently known limit but I imagine there are more than a few things that will be discovered in the next 80 years.Besides that, quantum computing will very likely obsolete the way we currently calculate how fast something is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738941</id>
	<title>Nothing a watercooling block cant fix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, 10^16 times faster than todays machine, but can I overclock it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , 10 ^ 16 times faster than todays machine , but can I overclock it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, 10^16 times faster than todays machine, but can I overclock it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737829</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Hoi Polloi</author>
	<datestamp>1255431000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the meantime just keep putting redundant statements in endlessly nested loops, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the meantime just keep putting redundant statements in endlessly nested loops , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the meantime just keep putting redundant statements in endlessly nested loops, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741115</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental time unit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255455000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, some algorithms do not lend themselves to parallel execution(like median filters).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , some algorithms do not lend themselves to parallel execution ( like median filters ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, some algorithms do not lend themselves to parallel execution(like median filters).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738457</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, an accountant was with them too. He walked straight to the cake, and called it a rounding error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , an accountant was with them too .
He walked straight to the cake , and called it a rounding error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, an accountant was with them too.
He walked straight to the cake, and called it a rounding error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738199</id>
	<title>It's not a law!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry parent for hijacking, but need to troll a bit here...<br>
<br>
<i> <b>It's not a law!</b></i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry parent for hijacking , but need to troll a bit here.. . It 's not a law !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry parent for hijacking, but need to troll a bit here...

 It's not a law!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738909</id>
	<title>Re:Computing to what end</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1255436160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy.... CG effects for movies.</p><p>From 20 years ago to today, Pixar still takes about 1 hours per frame to render their footage. At 24 frames per second for cinema projection, that's a lot of computation power (around 172,800 hours of rendertime for a 2 hour movie) and they're using cutting-edge equipment. As computers get faster, that hour/frame threshold remains and allows for better quality output. We're still nowhere near high-resolution photorealistic rendering at realtime. Games take an incredible amount of computational and graphic shortcuts, even in something as "real" as Crysis.</p><p>Also, take a look at what most supercomputers are used for.... whether, biological, and physics research.</p><p>And that new telescope that's been on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. quite bit recently.... generates 30TB of data daily. That's an insane amount of data to process, even if the I/O issues are solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy.... CG effects for movies.From 20 years ago to today , Pixar still takes about 1 hours per frame to render their footage .
At 24 frames per second for cinema projection , that 's a lot of computation power ( around 172,800 hours of rendertime for a 2 hour movie ) and they 're using cutting-edge equipment .
As computers get faster , that hour/frame threshold remains and allows for better quality output .
We 're still nowhere near high-resolution photorealistic rendering at realtime .
Games take an incredible amount of computational and graphic shortcuts , even in something as " real " as Crysis.Also , take a look at what most supercomputers are used for.... whether , biological , and physics research.And that new telescope that 's been on / .
quite bit recently.... generates 30TB of data daily .
That 's an insane amount of data to process , even if the I/O issues are solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy.... CG effects for movies.From 20 years ago to today, Pixar still takes about 1 hours per frame to render their footage.
At 24 frames per second for cinema projection, that's a lot of computation power (around 172,800 hours of rendertime for a 2 hour movie) and they're using cutting-edge equipment.
As computers get faster, that hour/frame threshold remains and allows for better quality output.
We're still nowhere near high-resolution photorealistic rendering at realtime.
Games take an incredible amount of computational and graphic shortcuts, even in something as "real" as Crysis.Also, take a look at what most supercomputers are used for.... whether, biological, and physics research.And that new telescope that's been on /.
quite bit recently.... generates 30TB of data daily.
That's an insane amount of data to process, even if the I/O issues are solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740287</id>
	<title>Thats why</title>
	<author>doronbc</author>
	<datestamp>1255447140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You increase the speed of light. According to Futurama, that will happen in 2208, so I think were screwed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You increase the speed of light .
According to Futurama , that will happen in 2208 , so I think were screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You increase the speed of light.
According to Futurama, that will happen in 2208, so I think were screwed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742019</id>
	<title>Re:No growth can go on forever</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1255511820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Humans do not understand exponential growth" --Unknown.
<br> <br>
Thats doubly true when its with money....</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Humans do not understand exponential growth " --Unknown .
Thats doubly true when its with money... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Humans do not understand exponential growth" --Unknown.
Thats doubly true when its with money....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742473</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary journals</title>
	<author>tqft</author>
	<datestamp>1255517580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>arxiv is your friend</p><p><a href="http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=0905.3417&amp;qid=null&amp;qs=Lev+B.+Levitin+and+Tommaso+Toffoli&amp;byDate=1" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=0905.3417&amp;qid=null&amp;qs=Lev+B.+Levitin+and+Tommaso+Toffoli&amp;byDate=1</a> [arxiv.org]</p><p>most released papers have a pre-print arxiv version.</p><p>Search by lots of different things</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>arxiv is your friendhttp : //search.arxiv.org : 8081/paper.jsp ? r = 0905.3417&amp;qid = null&amp;qs = Lev + B. + Levitin + and + Tommaso + Toffoli&amp;byDate = 1 [ arxiv.org ] most released papers have a pre-print arxiv version.Search by lots of different things</tokentext>
<sentencetext>arxiv is your friendhttp://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=0905.3417&amp;qid=null&amp;qs=Lev+B.+Levitin+and+Tommaso+Toffoli&amp;byDate=1 [arxiv.org]most released papers have a pre-print arxiv version.Search by lots of different things</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738195</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, this terrible, awful, suffocating <em>convenience</em>.<br>But seriously, you sound like you work in a field where computers have largely ceased being the bottleneck. Since the user bottlenecks parts of the system, application development has reached a plateu where the rise computing power keeps up with demand.<br>Quit your web or application development job and get into a heavy computing field like atmospheric science, bioinformatics or search, where the amount of data easily keeps up with Moore's law, and throwing more hardware at the problem isn't a solution but a neccessity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , this terrible , awful , suffocating convenience.But seriously , you sound like you work in a field where computers have largely ceased being the bottleneck .
Since the user bottlenecks parts of the system , application development has reached a plateu where the rise computing power keeps up with demand.Quit your web or application development job and get into a heavy computing field like atmospheric science , bioinformatics or search , where the amount of data easily keeps up with Moore 's law , and throwing more hardware at the problem is n't a solution but a neccessity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, this terrible, awful, suffocating convenience.But seriously, you sound like you work in a field where computers have largely ceased being the bottleneck.
Since the user bottlenecks parts of the system, application development has reached a plateu where the rise computing power keeps up with demand.Quit your web or application development job and get into a heavy computing field like atmospheric science, bioinformatics or search, where the amount of data easily keeps up with Moore's law, and throwing more hardware at the problem isn't a solution but a neccessity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739089</id>
	<title>What ABOUT Parallelism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255437540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about parallelism?</p><p>This made me facepalm.  What about it?  These physicist used the laws of thermodynamics to establish a fundamental limit to how much usable information can be inserted or extracted from a volume of space.  What does parallelism have to do with that at all?  What indeed?</p><p>See how easy it is to ask rhetorical questions?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about parallelism ? This made me facepalm .
What about it ?
These physicist used the laws of thermodynamics to establish a fundamental limit to how much usable information can be inserted or extracted from a volume of space .
What does parallelism have to do with that at all ?
What indeed ? See how easy it is to ask rhetorical questions ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about parallelism?This made me facepalm.
What about it?
These physicist used the laws of thermodynamics to establish a fundamental limit to how much usable information can be inserted or extracted from a volume of space.
What does parallelism have to do with that at all?
What indeed?See how easy it is to ask rhetorical questions?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739959</id>
	<title>Re:Physicists said we could not exceed 2400 baud t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255444140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting.  Can you provide a reference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
Can you provide a reference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
Can you provide a reference?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739443</id>
	<title>Re:Physicists said we could not exceed 2400 baud t</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Yup, back in the 80s the physicists said it would be physically impossible to<br>&gt; provide switching and encoding which would allow phone line communication to<br>&gt; exceed 2400 baud in modems.</p><p>Let's see a citation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Yup , back in the 80s the physicists said it would be physically impossible to &gt; provide switching and encoding which would allow phone line communication to &gt; exceed 2400 baud in modems.Let 's see a citation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Yup, back in the 80s the physicists said it would be physically impossible to&gt; provide switching and encoding which would allow phone line communication to&gt; exceed 2400 baud in modems.Let's see a citation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738883</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255435980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What he means is this:</p><p>Logical operations can be composed of other operations.</p><p>For instance, it's possible to build all the Boolean logical operations (like AND, OR, NOT, etc) out of combinations of the Not-And operator.</p><p>In 1980, one of the two physicists here showed that there is one such quantum operation that you can use to construct all other logical operations.</p><p>This paper is about the fundamental speed at which you can do that particular quantum operation.</p><p>So, "one computation per second" means one application of his quantum operator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What he means is this : Logical operations can be composed of other operations.For instance , it 's possible to build all the Boolean logical operations ( like AND , OR , NOT , etc ) out of combinations of the Not-And operator.In 1980 , one of the two physicists here showed that there is one such quantum operation that you can use to construct all other logical operations.This paper is about the fundamental speed at which you can do that particular quantum operation.So , " one computation per second " means one application of his quantum operator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he means is this:Logical operations can be composed of other operations.For instance, it's possible to build all the Boolean logical operations (like AND, OR, NOT, etc) out of combinations of the Not-And operator.In 1980, one of the two physicists here showed that there is one such quantum operation that you can use to construct all other logical operations.This paper is about the fundamental speed at which you can do that particular quantum operation.So, "one computation per second" means one application of his quantum operator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743143</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255526940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can walk up to the cake at the same time...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can walk up to the cake at the same time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can walk up to the cake at the same time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738351</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>SchroedingersCat</author>
	<datestamp>1255433160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>2.56 &#215; 10^47 bits per second per gram
Ref: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann's\_limit" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bremermann's limit</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>2.56   10 ^ 47 bits per second per gram Ref : Bremermann 's limit [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.56 × 10^47 bits per second per gram
Ref: Bremermann's limit [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738319</id>
	<title>mo3 do3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">From now on or to Edecline for *BSD Is dying It is Downward spiral. recent article put minutes now while</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>From now on or to Edecline for * BSD Is dying It is Downward spiral .
recent article put minutes now while [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From now on or to Edecline for *BSD Is dying It is Downward spiral.
recent article put minutes now while [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738051</id>
	<title>Does this mean no warp drive?</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1255431780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I figure that - even if we find the dilithium crystals - we'd need really fast computers to handle space flights, transporter beams, instant food generators, doors that go "shh!" and warp drive.<br><br>I guess it is all just fiction after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure that - even if we find the dilithium crystals - we 'd need really fast computers to handle space flights , transporter beams , instant food generators , doors that go " shh !
" and warp drive.I guess it is all just fiction after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure that - even if we find the dilithium crystals - we'd need really fast computers to handle space flights, transporter beams, instant food generators, doors that go "shh!
" and warp drive.I guess it is all just fiction after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738305</id>
	<title>Too bad spped is just a byproduct</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255432980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of Moore's law. Moore's law has to to with the cost of a number of transistor in a given space of silicon.</p><p>There are practical limits we are running into that are getting harder and harder to solve.<br>We are approaching the point where 1 particle of metal per billion and ruin a fab process.<br>In order to bypass that, we will need to self contained fabs; which would have an even more limited lifecycle the current fabs.</p><p>This means the cost of chips could rise dramatically. I don't think many people are going to spend 5K on a home computer anymore.</p><p>What is happening is that they are going wide. So more chips but not faster chips; which I think is better anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of Moore 's law .
Moore 's law has to to with the cost of a number of transistor in a given space of silicon.There are practical limits we are running into that are getting harder and harder to solve.We are approaching the point where 1 particle of metal per billion and ruin a fab process.In order to bypass that , we will need to self contained fabs ; which would have an even more limited lifecycle the current fabs.This means the cost of chips could rise dramatically .
I do n't think many people are going to spend 5K on a home computer anymore.What is happening is that they are going wide .
So more chips but not faster chips ; which I think is better anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of Moore's law.
Moore's law has to to with the cost of a number of transistor in a given space of silicon.There are practical limits we are running into that are getting harder and harder to solve.We are approaching the point where 1 particle of metal per billion and ruin a fab process.In order to bypass that, we will need to self contained fabs; which would have an even more limited lifecycle the current fabs.This means the cost of chips could rise dramatically.
I don't think many people are going to spend 5K on a home computer anymore.What is happening is that they are going wide.
So more chips but not faster chips; which I think is better anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738295</id>
	<title>the limit has been known for the past 50 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremermann's\_limit" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bremermann's limit</a> [wikipedia.org] and it has been known for 50 years: 2.56 &#215; 10^47 bits per second per gram</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is called Bremermann 's limit [ wikipedia.org ] and it has been known for 50 years : 2.56   10 ^ 47 bits per second per gram</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is called Bremermann's limit [wikipedia.org] and it has been known for 50 years: 2.56 × 10^47 bits per second per gram</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737901</id>
	<title>Proprietary journals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an intriguing idea. The article really whet my curiosity. Then to find, as is all too common for scientific journals, that I can't read the damned paper itself without "buying" it. How anti-climatic.</p><p>Does anyone have further insight into their ideas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an intriguing idea .
The article really whet my curiosity .
Then to find , as is all too common for scientific journals , that I ca n't read the damned paper itself without " buying " it .
How anti-climatic.Does anyone have further insight into their ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an intriguing idea.
The article really whet my curiosity.
Then to find, as is all too common for scientific journals, that I can't read the damned paper itself without "buying" it.
How anti-climatic.Does anyone have further insight into their ideas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29746401</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... see equation 14.  It gives the energy E dissipated per operation in terms of the number of operations per second R.  It's a linear relation - so the rate at which energy is dissipated as heat, Q, is proportional to R^2 as they say in the next sentence.  (They typo 'heat' as 'head'.)</p><p>So if you've got a certain fixed power supply (and hence amount of power that you can dissipate as heat), then the maximum rate at which you can perform operations is proportional to the square root of that amount of power.  So the units of the limit are (operations/second)/sqrt(Joule).</p><p>Note that if your minimum power consumption goes up as the square of the computation rate, you should be able to save power by running several computers in parallel.  I don't know if this is relevant here, though - perhaps reversible computing requires that the entire job must be executed on a single processor (or a set of entangled processors, which may count as a single processor under this treatment).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm ... see equation 14 .
It gives the energy E dissipated per operation in terms of the number of operations per second R. It 's a linear relation - so the rate at which energy is dissipated as heat , Q , is proportional to R ^ 2 as they say in the next sentence .
( They typo 'heat ' as 'head' .
) So if you 've got a certain fixed power supply ( and hence amount of power that you can dissipate as heat ) , then the maximum rate at which you can perform operations is proportional to the square root of that amount of power .
So the units of the limit are ( operations/second ) /sqrt ( Joule ) .Note that if your minimum power consumption goes up as the square of the computation rate , you should be able to save power by running several computers in parallel .
I do n't know if this is relevant here , though - perhaps reversible computing requires that the entire job must be executed on a single processor ( or a set of entangled processors , which may count as a single processor under this treatment ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm ... see equation 14.
It gives the energy E dissipated per operation in terms of the number of operations per second R.  It's a linear relation - so the rate at which energy is dissipated as heat, Q, is proportional to R^2 as they say in the next sentence.
(They typo 'heat' as 'head'.
)So if you've got a certain fixed power supply (and hence amount of power that you can dissipate as heat), then the maximum rate at which you can perform operations is proportional to the square root of that amount of power.
So the units of the limit are (operations/second)/sqrt(Joule).Note that if your minimum power consumption goes up as the square of the computation rate, you should be able to save power by running several computers in parallel.
I don't know if this is relevant here, though - perhaps reversible computing requires that the entire job must be executed on a single processor (or a set of entangled processors, which may count as a single processor under this treatment).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738329</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255433100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speed of light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speed of light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742493</id>
	<title>Windows 2075 ViXtaPro OuterSpace Editon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will fully exploit your computing power with the new Aeno eye catching GUI accelerator technology</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will fully exploit your computing power with the new Aeno eye catching GUI accelerator technology</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will fully exploit your computing power with the new Aeno eye catching GUI accelerator technology</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738133</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1255432140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Won't work.  Beowolf cluster at that point will be abhorrent to the nature so the nature will one way or another screw with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't work .
Beowolf cluster at that point will be abhorrent to the nature so the nature will one way or another screw with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't work.
Beowolf cluster at that point will be abhorrent to the nature so the nature will one way or another screw with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739027</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1255437060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>looks like we've almost reached that point now. We've had Xeon 3.0GHz cpus for over 5 years now, and they're still coming out with brand new 3ghz processors. That's a long time to not see a jump in speed, what happened to "doubling every 18 months"? We should be around 24ghz by now.</i></p><p>Performance != MHz.</p><p>Those 3GHz Pentium 4 Xeons suck balls compared to even a Core 2, forget about an i7.</p><p>The only way the P4 got to what were at the time extremely high frequencies was by having a craptastic architecture.  It was driven by marketing, which when the P4 was released was all about MHz.  People thought MHz == Performance, so they cranked up the MHz for minimal gain in performance.  AMD tried like hell to convince people otherwise, but fat lot of good it seemed to do.  And now Intel is suffering for their previous emphasis on MHz over all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>looks like we 've almost reached that point now .
We 've had Xeon 3.0GHz cpus for over 5 years now , and they 're still coming out with brand new 3ghz processors .
That 's a long time to not see a jump in speed , what happened to " doubling every 18 months " ?
We should be around 24ghz by now.Performance ! = MHz.Those 3GHz Pentium 4 Xeons suck balls compared to even a Core 2 , forget about an i7.The only way the P4 got to what were at the time extremely high frequencies was by having a craptastic architecture .
It was driven by marketing , which when the P4 was released was all about MHz .
People thought MHz = = Performance , so they cranked up the MHz for minimal gain in performance .
AMD tried like hell to convince people otherwise , but fat lot of good it seemed to do .
And now Intel is suffering for their previous emphasis on MHz over all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looks like we've almost reached that point now.
We've had Xeon 3.0GHz cpus for over 5 years now, and they're still coming out with brand new 3ghz processors.
That's a long time to not see a jump in speed, what happened to "doubling every 18 months"?
We should be around 24ghz by now.Performance != MHz.Those 3GHz Pentium 4 Xeons suck balls compared to even a Core 2, forget about an i7.The only way the P4 got to what were at the time extremely high frequencies was by having a craptastic architecture.
It was driven by marketing, which when the P4 was released was all about MHz.
People thought MHz == Performance, so they cranked up the MHz for minimal gain in performance.
AMD tried like hell to convince people otherwise, but fat lot of good it seemed to do.
And now Intel is suffering for their previous emphasis on MHz over all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747893</id>
	<title>As the kids say...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255548720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]. Who were these physicists who allegedly said this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ] .
Who were these physicists who allegedly said this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed].
Who were these physicists who allegedly said this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737867</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!!</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1255431120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would expect that (if this is true) then the exponential rate of performance increases processor to processor will decrease, or to put it another way: you'll see diminishing returns on your processor improvements that will keep putting that 80 year figure further into the future.</p><p>Is anyone who understands this sort of stuff commenting? This sounds like it'll be regarded as quite an important discovery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would expect that ( if this is true ) then the exponential rate of performance increases processor to processor will decrease , or to put it another way : you 'll see diminishing returns on your processor improvements that will keep putting that 80 year figure further into the future.Is anyone who understands this sort of stuff commenting ?
This sounds like it 'll be regarded as quite an important discovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would expect that (if this is true) then the exponential rate of performance increases processor to processor will decrease, or to put it another way: you'll see diminishing returns on your processor improvements that will keep putting that 80 year figure further into the future.Is anyone who understands this sort of stuff commenting?
This sounds like it'll be regarded as quite an important discovery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737949</id>
	<title>I can't believe it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At the current Moore's Law pace, computational speeds will hit the wall in 75 to 80 years"</p><p>So soon? I'm dumping all my tech stocks! So computer chip speeds will max out at the speed of a room full of human brains. Outside of attempting to model the Universe what do you need that much power for? Not graphics, games or robotics. Realtime sequencing DNA would be a breeze long before you'd max the limit so what practical use are we missing out on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At the current Moore 's Law pace , computational speeds will hit the wall in 75 to 80 years " So soon ?
I 'm dumping all my tech stocks !
So computer chip speeds will max out at the speed of a room full of human brains .
Outside of attempting to model the Universe what do you need that much power for ?
Not graphics , games or robotics .
Realtime sequencing DNA would be a breeze long before you 'd max the limit so what practical use are we missing out on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At the current Moore's Law pace, computational speeds will hit the wall in 75 to 80 years"So soon?
I'm dumping all my tech stocks!
So computer chip speeds will max out at the speed of a room full of human brains.
Outside of attempting to model the Universe what do you need that much power for?
Not graphics, games or robotics.
Realtime sequencing DNA would be a breeze long before you'd max the limit so what practical use are we missing out on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738741</id>
	<title>Even when you hit the limit you can add more cpus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255435140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even when you hit the limit you can add more cpus / other helper chips.</p><p>Right now lot of stuff is started to be coded to use many cores / cups / gpu + cpu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even when you hit the limit you can add more cpus / other helper chips.Right now lot of stuff is started to be coded to use many cores / cups / gpu + cpu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even when you hit the limit you can add more cpus / other helper chips.Right now lot of stuff is started to be coded to use many cores / cups / gpu + cpu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747735</id>
	<title>This is an important point</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255548000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a lot more likely that Moore's law (and technology expansion in general) is more likely to be following a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic\_curve" title="wikipedia.org">logistic curve</a> [wikipedia.org]. It looks exponential for a while, but eventually levels out as you come upon fundamental limits to further growth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a lot more likely that Moore 's law ( and technology expansion in general ) is more likely to be following a logistic curve [ wikipedia.org ] .
It looks exponential for a while , but eventually levels out as you come upon fundamental limits to further growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a lot more likely that Moore's law (and technology expansion in general) is more likely to be following a logistic curve [wikipedia.org].
It looks exponential for a while, but eventually levels out as you come upon fundamental limits to further growth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738003</id>
	<title>Electricity cost comes first...</title>
	<author>RyanFenton</author>
	<datestamp>1255431600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the current rate of progress, so to speak, no one will be able to afford a computer that runs 10^16 times faster than current systems.  Even as a gamer, I'm already leery of buying any of the newer video cards and CPU setups, after reviewing the cost in electricity needed to run them for a year compared to my existing system - they use somewhere around 4 times the electricity!</p><p>I can understand fitting more transistors onto a chipset, and more chipsets onto a system, but even with nanotech and similar technologies, I don't see much chance for each transistor to use proportionally less electricity to allow 10^16 more of them to be running at once.  You'd have to run a conductance cable to the sun to get that kind of power.</p><p>Ryan Fenton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the current rate of progress , so to speak , no one will be able to afford a computer that runs 10 ^ 16 times faster than current systems .
Even as a gamer , I 'm already leery of buying any of the newer video cards and CPU setups , after reviewing the cost in electricity needed to run them for a year compared to my existing system - they use somewhere around 4 times the electricity ! I can understand fitting more transistors onto a chipset , and more chipsets onto a system , but even with nanotech and similar technologies , I do n't see much chance for each transistor to use proportionally less electricity to allow 10 ^ 16 more of them to be running at once .
You 'd have to run a conductance cable to the sun to get that kind of power.Ryan Fenton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the current rate of progress, so to speak, no one will be able to afford a computer that runs 10^16 times faster than current systems.
Even as a gamer, I'm already leery of buying any of the newer video cards and CPU setups, after reviewing the cost in electricity needed to run them for a year compared to my existing system - they use somewhere around 4 times the electricity!I can understand fitting more transistors onto a chipset, and more chipsets onto a system, but even with nanotech and similar technologies, I don't see much chance for each transistor to use proportionally less electricity to allow 10^16 more of them to be running at once.
You'd have to run a conductance cable to the sun to get that kind of power.Ryan Fenton</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740717</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>jcohen</author>
	<datestamp>1255450800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern scientists do not believe in Zeno's paradox. This is an ancient article, but take a look at Adolf Gr&uuml;nbaum's "Modern Science and Zeno's Paradoxes of Motion," circa 1968. It's reprinted in <i>Zeno's Paradoxes</i>, edited by Wesley C. Salmon.</p><p>The joke's still funny, but it stereotypes scientists as theory-crazed and impractical -- which I suppose is the typical point of view of an engineer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern scientists do not believe in Zeno 's paradox .
This is an ancient article , but take a look at Adolf Gr   nbaum 's " Modern Science and Zeno 's Paradoxes of Motion , " circa 1968 .
It 's reprinted in Zeno 's Paradoxes , edited by Wesley C. Salmon.The joke 's still funny , but it stereotypes scientists as theory-crazed and impractical -- which I suppose is the typical point of view of an engineer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern scientists do not believe in Zeno's paradox.
This is an ancient article, but take a look at Adolf Grünbaum's "Modern Science and Zeno's Paradoxes of Motion," circa 1968.
It's reprinted in Zeno's Paradoxes, edited by Wesley C. Salmon.The joke's still funny, but it stereotypes scientists as theory-crazed and impractical -- which I suppose is the typical point of view of an engineer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29744745</id>
	<title>What about windows</title>
	<author>namoom</author>
	<datestamp>1255535220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>if we hit a computational limit how will windows ever survive new releases</htmltext>
<tokenext>if we hit a computational limit how will windows ever survive new releases</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if we hit a computational limit how will windows ever survive new releases</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743599</id>
	<title>Correct article link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255530180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if someone already corrected this omission, but the linked article originally provided in this story is not the correct one. (It is an old article from 2007 that relates the minimum energy dissipation per step to the square of the rate of computation and also derives a generalized Clausius principle.) I believe the correct article to refer to is the following:</p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3417</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if someone already corrected this omission , but the linked article originally provided in this story is not the correct one .
( It is an old article from 2007 that relates the minimum energy dissipation per step to the square of the rate of computation and also derives a generalized Clausius principle .
) I believe the correct article to refer to is the following : http : //arxiv.org/abs/0905.3417</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if someone already corrected this omission, but the linked article originally provided in this story is not the correct one.
(It is an old article from 2007 that relates the minimum energy dissipation per step to the square of the rate of computation and also derives a generalized Clausius principle.
) I believe the correct article to refer to is the following:http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3417</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738495</id>
	<title>Windows Vista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how will we ever run Vista?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how will we ever run Vista ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how will we ever run Vista?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740941</id>
	<title>Re:Subspace FTL field</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1255453140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All of these pesky "limits" can be worked around with some fancy level-three diagnostics.</p></div><p>Hmmm...well you know, they could probably double the relative efficiency of the ODN conduits by simply reversing the polarity of the intermix chamber.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these pesky " limits " can be worked around with some fancy level-three diagnostics.Hmmm...well you know , they could probably double the relative efficiency of the ODN conduits by simply reversing the polarity of the intermix chamber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these pesky "limits" can be worked around with some fancy level-three diagnostics.Hmmm...well you know, they could probably double the relative efficiency of the ODN conduits by simply reversing the polarity of the intermix chamber.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013</id>
	<title>Anyone else get the feeling...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to "compute" its own state?  That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit?  Once we hit the limit, our computations cease being simulations and become reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to " compute " its own state ?
That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit ?
Once we hit the limit , our computations cease being simulations and become reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to "compute" its own state?
That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit?
Once we hit the limit, our computations cease being simulations and become reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742111</id>
	<title>Re:Computing to what end</title>
	<author>king\_nebuchadnezzar</author>
	<datestamp>1255512600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try any NP complete problem, this includes traveling salesman graph reduction and many others. lots and lots of problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try any NP complete problem , this includes traveling salesman graph reduction and many others .
lots and lots of problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try any NP complete problem, this includes traveling salesman graph reduction and many others.
lots and lots of problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739517</id>
	<title>Re:Physicists said we could not exceed 2400 baud t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>References please?  To which "physicists" do you refer?  And what were their assumptions that led to their conclusions?</p><p>The data speed of phone lines in the 1980s would be more of a concern for engineers than physicists, with all due respect to both professions.</p><p>Frankly it sounds to me like you have quoted something horribly out of context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>References please ?
To which " physicists " do you refer ?
And what were their assumptions that led to their conclusions ? The data speed of phone lines in the 1980s would be more of a concern for engineers than physicists , with all due respect to both professions.Frankly it sounds to me like you have quoted something horribly out of context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>References please?
To which "physicists" do you refer?
And what were their assumptions that led to their conclusions?The data speed of phone lines in the 1980s would be more of a concern for engineers than physicists, with all due respect to both professions.Frankly it sounds to me like you have quoted something horribly out of context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747811</id>
	<title>Re:Form over function</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A)  If you are dealing with infinites, then removing a finite set of substates still leaves an infinite set of states.</p><p>B)  You don't need to simulate the entire universe.  You just need to simulate the portion of the universe that you experience.  The Brain-in-a-jar problem.  Simulating the "portion you experience" would be indistinguishable from "the entire universe" for a sufficiently adept simulation.  From the inside, your tests are, of course, part of the simulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A ) If you are dealing with infinites , then removing a finite set of substates still leaves an infinite set of states.B ) You do n't need to simulate the entire universe .
You just need to simulate the portion of the universe that you experience .
The Brain-in-a-jar problem .
Simulating the " portion you experience " would be indistinguishable from " the entire universe " for a sufficiently adept simulation .
From the inside , your tests are , of course , part of the simulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A)  If you are dealing with infinites, then removing a finite set of substates still leaves an infinite set of states.B)  You don't need to simulate the entire universe.
You just need to simulate the portion of the universe that you experience.
The Brain-in-a-jar problem.
Simulating the "portion you experience" would be indistinguishable from "the entire universe" for a sufficiently adept simulation.
From the inside, your tests are, of course, part of the simulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</id>
	<title>Physicists said we could not exceed 2400 baud too</title>
	<author>Glasswire</author>
	<datestamp>1255435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, back in the 80s the physicists said it would be physically impossible to provide switching and encoding which would allow phone line communication to exceed 2400 baud in modems.  Yet before we gave up on phone lines, the modem builders were giving us 56,000 baud connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , back in the 80s the physicists said it would be physically impossible to provide switching and encoding which would allow phone line communication to exceed 2400 baud in modems .
Yet before we gave up on phone lines , the modem builders were giving us 56,000 baud connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, back in the 80s the physicists said it would be physically impossible to provide switching and encoding which would allow phone line communication to exceed 2400 baud in modems.
Yet before we gave up on phone lines, the modem builders were giving us 56,000 baud connections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738253</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1255432800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very true.<br> <br>... though every version I have ever heard of the joke/tale replaced "Treausre" with "attractive woman".  This was partially due to the (sadly) male-only content of my graduate-level EE classes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
... though every version I have ever heard of the joke/tale replaced " Treausre " with " attractive woman " .
This was partially due to the ( sadly ) male-only content of my graduate-level EE classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
... though every version I have ever heard of the joke/tale replaced "Treausre" with "attractive woman".
This was partially due to the (sadly) male-only content of my graduate-level EE classes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741255</id>
	<title>Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255457100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since he wrote that text computers are far more than a million times as fast.  People now type <i>slower</i>, not faster, than they did then.  People who use computers get less effective every year on average, not more so.  So yeah, for the rare soul who can push a PC to its limits Moore's law gives us awesome progress.  For the vast majority it just helps us waste time faster.
</p><p>One might say that in the wrong hands a modern PC allows the average person to go wrong so quickly as to be beyond human reflex to prevent - it operates so fast that with one wrong click on the Internet your computer can become exploited and send more email in a single hour than you could compose in a lifetime.  Now <i>that</i> is progress!
</p><p>Since Gordon Moore has himself admitted that his own definition of Moore's law has changed over time to apply to different things and to appropriately fit the curve of the data he was describing, to provide a link to what you consider a canonical reference is, well, silly.  Moore's law is that progress is a logarithmic progression on the order of 2 to the power of t, where t is a time unit that fits the observed curve of the domain of progress.  And it's not a future promise - it's an observation of past trends which <i>may</i> continue.  It's also not a smooth curve, it's lumpy.  But it remains one of the wisest observations of progress in the modern era.  Let's leave it at that.
</p><p>Now forgive me, but my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. time is up and I have to go feed my Facebook goldfish and check the T-Mobile twitter feed to see if my SideKick data is recovered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since he wrote that text computers are far more than a million times as fast .
People now type slower , not faster , than they did then .
People who use computers get less effective every year on average , not more so .
So yeah , for the rare soul who can push a PC to its limits Moore 's law gives us awesome progress .
For the vast majority it just helps us waste time faster .
One might say that in the wrong hands a modern PC allows the average person to go wrong so quickly as to be beyond human reflex to prevent - it operates so fast that with one wrong click on the Internet your computer can become exploited and send more email in a single hour than you could compose in a lifetime .
Now that is progress !
Since Gordon Moore has himself admitted that his own definition of Moore 's law has changed over time to apply to different things and to appropriately fit the curve of the data he was describing , to provide a link to what you consider a canonical reference is , well , silly .
Moore 's law is that progress is a logarithmic progression on the order of 2 to the power of t , where t is a time unit that fits the observed curve of the domain of progress .
And it 's not a future promise - it 's an observation of past trends which may continue .
It 's also not a smooth curve , it 's lumpy .
But it remains one of the wisest observations of progress in the modern era .
Let 's leave it at that .
Now forgive me , but my / .
time is up and I have to go feed my Facebook goldfish and check the T-Mobile twitter feed to see if my SideKick data is recovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since he wrote that text computers are far more than a million times as fast.
People now type slower, not faster, than they did then.
People who use computers get less effective every year on average, not more so.
So yeah, for the rare soul who can push a PC to its limits Moore's law gives us awesome progress.
For the vast majority it just helps us waste time faster.
One might say that in the wrong hands a modern PC allows the average person to go wrong so quickly as to be beyond human reflex to prevent - it operates so fast that with one wrong click on the Internet your computer can become exploited and send more email in a single hour than you could compose in a lifetime.
Now that is progress!
Since Gordon Moore has himself admitted that his own definition of Moore's law has changed over time to apply to different things and to appropriately fit the curve of the data he was describing, to provide a link to what you consider a canonical reference is, well, silly.
Moore's law is that progress is a logarithmic progression on the order of 2 to the power of t, where t is a time unit that fits the observed curve of the domain of progress.
And it's not a future promise - it's an observation of past trends which may continue.
It's also not a smooth curve, it's lumpy.
But it remains one of the wisest observations of progress in the modern era.
Let's leave it at that.
Now forgive me, but my /.
time is up and I have to go feed my Facebook goldfish and check the T-Mobile twitter feed to see if my SideKick data is recovered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738241</id>
	<title>Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1255432740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess our kids and grandchildren have their work cut out for them.</p></div><p>Don't worry, they'll be too busy paying back all the money we've borrowed over the last few decades to worry about how fast they can make their computers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess our kids and grandchildren have their work cut out for them.Do n't worry , they 'll be too busy paying back all the money we 've borrowed over the last few decades to worry about how fast they can make their computers ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess our kids and grandchildren have their work cut out for them.Don't worry, they'll be too busy paying back all the money we've borrowed over the last few decades to worry about how fast they can make their computers ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738707</id>
	<title>Oh great..</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1255434960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that means I will be 100 by the time Windows runs smoothly on my machine?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that means I will be 100 by the time Windows runs smoothly on my machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that means I will be 100 by the time Windows runs smoothly on my machine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738103</id>
	<title>10^16 times faster?</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1255432020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, Windows will run fast enough to be useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , Windows will run fast enough to be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, Windows will run fast enough to be useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738209</id>
	<title>encryption breaking power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the theoretical max speed of calculations has been achieved, can you now calculate the theoretical minimum times for a single machine to crack certain encryption algorithms?</p><p>ie. How safe will files encrypted with today's encryption be in 80 yrs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the theoretical max speed of calculations has been achieved , can you now calculate the theoretical minimum times for a single machine to crack certain encryption algorithms ? ie .
How safe will files encrypted with today 's encryption be in 80 yrs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the theoretical max speed of calculations has been achieved, can you now calculate the theoretical minimum times for a single machine to crack certain encryption algorithms?ie.
How safe will files encrypted with today's encryption be in 80 yrs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743005</id>
	<title>Re:What ABOUT Parallelism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255525380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>See how easy it is to ask rhetorical questions?</p></div><p>How could I miss it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See how easy it is to ask rhetorical questions ? How could I miss it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See how easy it is to ask rhetorical questions?How could I miss it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738277</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>nick\_davison</author>
	<datestamp>1255432920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And were the engineer a hacker, he'd pick up the scientist, carry him half way across the room, set him down and say, "Your turn."</p><p>The game changing hackers are the ones who don't listen to the conventional logic of the time and figure out how to wander along a totally different axis that the "experts" hadn't thought of yet.</p><p>Look at Wolfenstein/Doom. 3D graphics "weren't possible" on home computers at the time. John Carmack turned it in to a 2D solution and solved it anyway. Perhaps not perfect in every regard but still a hell of a lot better than what anyone else were managing.</p><p>Nick's law: <em>at least</em> every 18 months, someone else will declare a limit to Moore's law [and turn out to be wrong].</p><p>With our current understanding of transistor science, I'm sure their point is a wonderful one. Problem is, with enough money behind finding the solution, someone'll come up with another axis to wander along that'll continue the advances. But don't feel bad, I'm sure plenty of people thought cart science had reached its theoretical peak and man would never move faster than horses were capable of, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And were the engineer a hacker , he 'd pick up the scientist , carry him half way across the room , set him down and say , " Your turn .
" The game changing hackers are the ones who do n't listen to the conventional logic of the time and figure out how to wander along a totally different axis that the " experts " had n't thought of yet.Look at Wolfenstein/Doom .
3D graphics " were n't possible " on home computers at the time .
John Carmack turned it in to a 2D solution and solved it anyway .
Perhaps not perfect in every regard but still a hell of a lot better than what anyone else were managing.Nick 's law : at least every 18 months , someone else will declare a limit to Moore 's law [ and turn out to be wrong ] .With our current understanding of transistor science , I 'm sure their point is a wonderful one .
Problem is , with enough money behind finding the solution , someone 'll come up with another axis to wander along that 'll continue the advances .
But do n't feel bad , I 'm sure plenty of people thought cart science had reached its theoretical peak and man would never move faster than horses were capable of , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And were the engineer a hacker, he'd pick up the scientist, carry him half way across the room, set him down and say, "Your turn.
"The game changing hackers are the ones who don't listen to the conventional logic of the time and figure out how to wander along a totally different axis that the "experts" hadn't thought of yet.Look at Wolfenstein/Doom.
3D graphics "weren't possible" on home computers at the time.
John Carmack turned it in to a 2D solution and solved it anyway.
Perhaps not perfect in every regard but still a hell of a lot better than what anyone else were managing.Nick's law: at least every 18 months, someone else will declare a limit to Moore's law [and turn out to be wrong].With our current understanding of transistor science, I'm sure their point is a wonderful one.
Problem is, with enough money behind finding the solution, someone'll come up with another axis to wander along that'll continue the advances.
But don't feel bad, I'm sure plenty of people thought cart science had reached its theoretical peak and man would never move faster than horses were capable of, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747607</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>punkrocher</author>
	<datestamp>1255547460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+1/(2\%5En)+from+1+to+inf" title="wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">This</a> [wolframalpha.com] says otherwise. The Mathematician should know better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This [ wolframalpha.com ] says otherwise .
The Mathematician should know better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This [wolframalpha.com] says otherwise.
The Mathematician should know better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741379</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255458840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go buy a lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go buy a lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go buy a lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741365</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>merreborn</author>
	<datestamp>1255458660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As countless of such laments throughout recorded history have shown, worries about intellectual demise of the youth are greatly overblown.</p></div><p>Sure. On average, human knowledge has grown throughout history.  But that doesn't mean there haven't been slumps.  Periods when we took a huge step backwards.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark\_Ages" title="wikipedia.org">The Dark Ages is a term in historiography referring to a perceived period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning...</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As countless of such laments throughout recorded history have shown , worries about intellectual demise of the youth are greatly overblown.Sure .
On average , human knowledge has grown throughout history .
But that does n't mean there have n't been slumps .
Periods when we took a huge step backwards.The Dark Ages is a term in historiography referring to a perceived period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As countless of such laments throughout recorded history have shown, worries about intellectual demise of the youth are greatly overblown.Sure.
On average, human knowledge has grown throughout history.
But that doesn't mean there haven't been slumps.
Periods when we took a huge step backwards.The Dark Ages is a term in historiography referring to a perceived period of cultural decline or societal collapse that took place in Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the eventual recovery of learning... [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29749829</id>
	<title>Oh NOES!</title>
	<author>Sinical</author>
	<datestamp>1255513980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, who will provide my quantum-mechanically-accurate-universe-in-which-quantum-mechanically-accurate-porn-stars-work porn if we can have processors that are only 10,000,000,000,000,000 faster (per gram?) than currently (taking the 10^16 at face value).  The children of the future will live impoverished lives of grievous destitution and horror!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , who will provide my quantum-mechanically-accurate-universe-in-which-quantum-mechanically-accurate-porn-stars-work porn if we can have processors that are only 10,000,000,000,000,000 faster ( per gram ?
) than currently ( taking the 10 ^ 16 at face value ) .
The children of the future will live impoverished lives of grievous destitution and horror !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, who will provide my quantum-mechanically-accurate-universe-in-which-quantum-mechanically-accurate-porn-stars-work porn if we can have processors that are only 10,000,000,000,000,000 faster (per gram?
) than currently (taking the 10^16 at face value).
The children of the future will live impoverished lives of grievous destitution and horror!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739379</id>
	<title>Computers will soon reach the Amiga Factor</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255439760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in which more than one processor will be used for various things like graphics, sound, I/O, memory management etc.</p><p>This will be done because they cannot make CPUs any faster clockwise or instructions per second wise, so they will have to use co-processors to work with the main CPU to free up the main CPU, and thus speed up the system.</p><p>We might even see parallel processing PCs with more than one CPU chip (not multi-core but more than one CPU) in order to run them in parallel to handle more things.</p><p>Some day we will reach quantum computing, fiber optic motherboards, fiber optic RAM, and then we will find way to speed things up more, but until we do, there will be physical limits on what a computer can do speedwise.</p><p>I call it the Amiga Factor as the Commodore Amiga used the 68000 running at a slower 7.14Mhz speed, but used co-processors to speed things up and take the tasks off the main CPU. We sort of have that a bit now with modern Macs and PCs as Video Cards have GPUs and some GPUs are built into the CPUs now, and each Sound Card has a processor of sorts. So basically modern systems have evolved into what the Amiga might have been had it used Intel chips instead of Motorola chips.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in which more than one processor will be used for various things like graphics , sound , I/O , memory management etc.This will be done because they can not make CPUs any faster clockwise or instructions per second wise , so they will have to use co-processors to work with the main CPU to free up the main CPU , and thus speed up the system.We might even see parallel processing PCs with more than one CPU chip ( not multi-core but more than one CPU ) in order to run them in parallel to handle more things.Some day we will reach quantum computing , fiber optic motherboards , fiber optic RAM , and then we will find way to speed things up more , but until we do , there will be physical limits on what a computer can do speedwise.I call it the Amiga Factor as the Commodore Amiga used the 68000 running at a slower 7.14Mhz speed , but used co-processors to speed things up and take the tasks off the main CPU .
We sort of have that a bit now with modern Macs and PCs as Video Cards have GPUs and some GPUs are built into the CPUs now , and each Sound Card has a processor of sorts .
So basically modern systems have evolved into what the Amiga might have been had it used Intel chips instead of Motorola chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in which more than one processor will be used for various things like graphics, sound, I/O, memory management etc.This will be done because they cannot make CPUs any faster clockwise or instructions per second wise, so they will have to use co-processors to work with the main CPU to free up the main CPU, and thus speed up the system.We might even see parallel processing PCs with more than one CPU chip (not multi-core but more than one CPU) in order to run them in parallel to handle more things.Some day we will reach quantum computing, fiber optic motherboards, fiber optic RAM, and then we will find way to speed things up more, but until we do, there will be physical limits on what a computer can do speedwise.I call it the Amiga Factor as the Commodore Amiga used the 68000 running at a slower 7.14Mhz speed, but used co-processors to speed things up and take the tasks off the main CPU.
We sort of have that a bit now with modern Macs and PCs as Video Cards have GPUs and some GPUs are built into the CPUs now, and each Sound Card has a processor of sorts.
So basically modern systems have evolved into what the Amiga might have been had it used Intel chips instead of Motorola chips.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29748011</id>
	<title>Re:Form over function</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knowns:</p><p>A:  Device is finite</p><p>B:  Device can simulate the universe completely.</p><p>C:  Device exists within the universe</p><p>Conjecture based on postulates:</p><p>1)  Universe is finite (because device is finite and can simulate the universe)</p><p>2)  Device is subset of the universe (because it is inside the universe)</p><p>3)  A subset of the universe is the same size as itself</p><p>4)  The universe is infinite:  this cancels 1, which means one of the "Knowns" is false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowns : A : Device is finiteB : Device can simulate the universe completely.C : Device exists within the universeConjecture based on postulates : 1 ) Universe is finite ( because device is finite and can simulate the universe ) 2 ) Device is subset of the universe ( because it is inside the universe ) 3 ) A subset of the universe is the same size as itself4 ) The universe is infinite : this cancels 1 , which means one of the " Knowns " is false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowns:A:  Device is finiteB:  Device can simulate the universe completely.C:  Device exists within the universeConjecture based on postulates:1)  Universe is finite (because device is finite and can simulate the universe)2)  Device is subset of the universe (because it is inside the universe)3)  A subset of the universe is the same size as itself4)  The universe is infinite:  this cancels 1, which means one of the "Knowns" is false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738975</id>
	<title>Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1255436700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All he's concerned about is quoting how many components can fit on a single integrated circuit. One can see this propagated to processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras but his observation itself is about the size of transistors -- not speed.</i></p><p><i>The title should be "The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed" not Moore's Law. </i></p><p>Meh.</p><p>While technically correct, the performance corollary of Moore's Law -- which is roughly "more transistors generally means smaller and thus faster transistors rather than exploding die sizes, plus more to do computation with, so performance also increases exponentially, and we observe that this is the case" -- is strong enough that it's often simply called Moore's Law even among the engineers in the chip design industry.  It's just understood what you're talking about, even though the time constant is different.</p><p>You'll occasionally see Intel (the company Moore founded) show charts with historical performance and future projections, and they'll include a line labeled "Moore's Law" to show how they're doing relative to the observation.  Because technically it is just an observation, and it holds true only to the extent that engineers of the computer, electrical, and material science variety bust their asses to make it true.</p><p>So maybe the layman thinks Moore's Law is about performance, and that's not technically true, but it's correct enough that even the engineers directly affected by it refer to it as if it meant performance.  So I say the the title is fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All he 's concerned about is quoting how many components can fit on a single integrated circuit .
One can see this propagated to processing speed , memory capacity , sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras but his observation itself is about the size of transistors -- not speed.The title should be " The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed " not Moore 's Law .
Meh.While technically correct , the performance corollary of Moore 's Law -- which is roughly " more transistors generally means smaller and thus faster transistors rather than exploding die sizes , plus more to do computation with , so performance also increases exponentially , and we observe that this is the case " -- is strong enough that it 's often simply called Moore 's Law even among the engineers in the chip design industry .
It 's just understood what you 're talking about , even though the time constant is different.You 'll occasionally see Intel ( the company Moore founded ) show charts with historical performance and future projections , and they 'll include a line labeled " Moore 's Law " to show how they 're doing relative to the observation .
Because technically it is just an observation , and it holds true only to the extent that engineers of the computer , electrical , and material science variety bust their asses to make it true.So maybe the layman thinks Moore 's Law is about performance , and that 's not technically true , but it 's correct enough that even the engineers directly affected by it refer to it as if it meant performance .
So I say the the title is fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All he's concerned about is quoting how many components can fit on a single integrated circuit.
One can see this propagated to processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras but his observation itself is about the size of transistors -- not speed.The title should be "The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed" not Moore's Law.
Meh.While technically correct, the performance corollary of Moore's Law -- which is roughly "more transistors generally means smaller and thus faster transistors rather than exploding die sizes, plus more to do computation with, so performance also increases exponentially, and we observe that this is the case" -- is strong enough that it's often simply called Moore's Law even among the engineers in the chip design industry.
It's just understood what you're talking about, even though the time constant is different.You'll occasionally see Intel (the company Moore founded) show charts with historical performance and future projections, and they'll include a line labeled "Moore's Law" to show how they're doing relative to the observation.
Because technically it is just an observation, and it holds true only to the extent that engineers of the computer, electrical, and material science variety bust their asses to make it true.So maybe the layman thinks Moore's Law is about performance, and that's not technically true, but it's correct enough that even the engineers directly affected by it refer to it as if it meant performance.
So I say the the title is fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738793</id>
	<title>The theory people arrive a bit late to the party</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1255435440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The physics folks might have worked out some interesting details here but that's all it is interesting.  The engineers have already moved on.  Its not about getting smaller and going faster has largely past the point of diminishing returns already.  There are few applications the digital logic we have today can't perform within time constraints.  Even our jet fighters are practically flying themselves. In fact our computing machines are so fast we starting to struggle justifying their applications on anyone task not because they are to expensive this time but because they are so fast that their just idle most of the time anyway.  Virtualization is more or less going back to time sharing without the pain.  Its about doing more at the same time now, hence all the milti-core chips.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The physics folks might have worked out some interesting details here but that 's all it is interesting .
The engineers have already moved on .
Its not about getting smaller and going faster has largely past the point of diminishing returns already .
There are few applications the digital logic we have today ca n't perform within time constraints .
Even our jet fighters are practically flying themselves .
In fact our computing machines are so fast we starting to struggle justifying their applications on anyone task not because they are to expensive this time but because they are so fast that their just idle most of the time anyway .
Virtualization is more or less going back to time sharing without the pain .
Its about doing more at the same time now , hence all the milti-core chips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The physics folks might have worked out some interesting details here but that's all it is interesting.
The engineers have already moved on.
Its not about getting smaller and going faster has largely past the point of diminishing returns already.
There are few applications the digital logic we have today can't perform within time constraints.
Even our jet fighters are practically flying themselves.
In fact our computing machines are so fast we starting to struggle justifying their applications on anyone task not because they are to expensive this time but because they are so fast that their just idle most of the time anyway.
Virtualization is more or less going back to time sharing without the pain.
Its about doing more at the same time now, hence all the milti-core chips.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739465</id>
	<title>Re: Channeling Yogi</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1255440480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There isn't any letting the singularity, if it is going to happen, it will do it on its own, and if it isn't going to happen, it will do that on its own too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't any letting the singularity , if it is going to happen , it will do it on its own , and if it is n't going to happen , it will do that on its own too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't any letting the singularity, if it is going to happen, it will do it on its own, and if it isn't going to happen, it will do that on its own too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743249</id>
	<title>Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time</title>
	<author>mhwombat</author>
	<datestamp>1255527960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The title should be "The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed" not Moore's Law.</p>
 </div><p>
Or the title could be "The Ultimate Thermodynamic Penalty for Computing Speed" since the title of the paper (not the article <i>about</i> the paper) is "Thermodynamic Cost of Reversible Computing".
</p><p>
The paper is actually about the heat dissipated when you try to increase computer speed. It doesn't actually place a hard bound on computing speeds, unless you want to make some assumptions about parameters such as error rates in your hypothetical computer and then infer compute speed limits from heat or energy limits.
</p><p>
The article, and hence the summary, and hence almost every comment, seems to be talking about speed rather than thermodynamics. The paper is about thermodynamics. It's about heat! I suppose it's too much to expect people to read TFP when<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. doesn't traditionally read TFA....
</p><p>
It's not clear to me from reading the article what parameters they assumed to get from the calculations in the paper to "75 years of Moore's Law". The stuff in the paper itself is much less fluffy than that.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title should be " The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed " not Moore 's Law .
Or the title could be " The Ultimate Thermodynamic Penalty for Computing Speed " since the title of the paper ( not the article about the paper ) is " Thermodynamic Cost of Reversible Computing " .
The paper is actually about the heat dissipated when you try to increase computer speed .
It does n't actually place a hard bound on computing speeds , unless you want to make some assumptions about parameters such as error rates in your hypothetical computer and then infer compute speed limits from heat or energy limits .
The article , and hence the summary , and hence almost every comment , seems to be talking about speed rather than thermodynamics .
The paper is about thermodynamics .
It 's about heat !
I suppose it 's too much to expect people to read TFP when / .
does n't traditionally read TFA... . It 's not clear to me from reading the article what parameters they assumed to get from the calculations in the paper to " 75 years of Moore 's Law " .
The stuff in the paper itself is much less fluffy than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title should be "The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed" not Moore's Law.
Or the title could be "The Ultimate Thermodynamic Penalty for Computing Speed" since the title of the paper (not the article about the paper) is "Thermodynamic Cost of Reversible Computing".
The paper is actually about the heat dissipated when you try to increase computer speed.
It doesn't actually place a hard bound on computing speeds, unless you want to make some assumptions about parameters such as error rates in your hypothetical computer and then infer compute speed limits from heat or energy limits.
The article, and hence the summary, and hence almost every comment, seems to be talking about speed rather than thermodynamics.
The paper is about thermodynamics.
It's about heat!
I suppose it's too much to expect people to read TFP when /.
doesn't traditionally read TFA....

It's not clear to me from reading the article what parameters they assumed to get from the calculations in the paper to "75 years of Moore's Law".
The stuff in the paper itself is much less fluffy than that.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740283</id>
	<title>Norton Internet Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255447140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Norton Internet Security 2090 will probably eat up any benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Norton Internet Security 2090 will probably eat up any benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Norton Internet Security 2090 will probably eat up any benefit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29745509</id>
	<title>Re:Electricity cost comes first...</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1255538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, we simply <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the\_doghouse\_cr.html" title="schneier.com">won't be able to collect enough energy to do computation at the speed of theoretical limits</a> [schneier.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , we simply wo n't be able to collect enough energy to do computation at the speed of theoretical limits [ schneier.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, we simply won't be able to collect enough energy to do computation at the speed of theoretical limits [schneier.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740213</id>
	<title>Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1255446480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for offering a bit of sanity to the whole Moore's Law (Peace Be Upon It) dogma.</p><p>Some people seem to think that Thomas' observation is some kind of fundamental law of physics that will always be obeyed, like gravity or thermodynamics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for offering a bit of sanity to the whole Moore 's Law ( Peace Be Upon It ) dogma.Some people seem to think that Thomas ' observation is some kind of fundamental law of physics that will always be obeyed , like gravity or thermodynamics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for offering a bit of sanity to the whole Moore's Law (Peace Be Upon It) dogma.Some people seem to think that Thomas' observation is some kind of fundamental law of physics that will always be obeyed, like gravity or thermodynamics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739111</id>
	<title>Re:Electricity cost comes first...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255437660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah our good friend and notorious troll, Ryan Fenton. I see you're still at your old trolling ways!</p><p>Video cards only draw their maximum power when they're being used for gaming. But when idle or doing desktop activities, they draw less power than the lower-power-envelope cards because they're more efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah our good friend and notorious troll , Ryan Fenton .
I see you 're still at your old trolling ways ! Video cards only draw their maximum power when they 're being used for gaming .
But when idle or doing desktop activities , they draw less power than the lower-power-envelope cards because they 're more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah our good friend and notorious troll, Ryan Fenton.
I see you're still at your old trolling ways!Video cards only draw their maximum power when they're being used for gaming.
But when idle or doing desktop activities, they draw less power than the lower-power-envelope cards because they're more efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741625</id>
	<title>Re:No growth can go on forever</title>
	<author>H3g3m0n</author>
	<datestamp>1255462680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well the exponential growth has been going on since the very first computer systems where made way back before Moore's law even existed, when they where still using vacuum tubes.<br> <br>

Arguably it goes back even further if you consider it to be systems for information processing rather than strictly computer systems. Things like writing, transcribing books, the printing press, mathematics and so on.<br> <br>

The growth will probably stop eventually but it's unlikely to occur before any kind of singularity happens, even if it does the world will be drastically different. The planned 2012 IBM supercomputer should have about enough processing power to emulate a human brain (its not doing that but they have the blue brain project underway), By 2025 a $1000 computer should have that power (consider what the super computers of that time will have). Unless you think Moore's law is going to kick us all in the nuts in the next 15 years we should be well on our way. Traditional Moore's law (as it applies to transistors on silicon) should continue till some time around 2030 (although some earlier limits are as low as 2020 and it might slow down things leading up to the point). This doesn't take into account the dozens of other non-traditional technologies under research that aren't Moore's law relates: memsistors, photonic computing, DNA/quantum computing (only useful for some specific computation but AI might apply), 3D-ICs, carbon nanotubes, graphite, spintronics.<br> <br>

After some kind of singularity (assuming we survive) we have no idea what the limits are, can we make new sub universes where the laws are better optimized for computing? or change the laws in some specific area? Can we use the theory of relativity to speed computation up (ie I leave a computer on the planet and travel at close to the speed of light in a circle until it finishes number crunching, or hopefully some similar system on a chip)? Can we find some ultimate universal loophole for infinite energy/computation? A cpu that works in an infinite number of parallel universes? Maybe we will hit the universal wall, but by that point it won't matter so much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the exponential growth has been going on since the very first computer systems where made way back before Moore 's law even existed , when they where still using vacuum tubes .
Arguably it goes back even further if you consider it to be systems for information processing rather than strictly computer systems .
Things like writing , transcribing books , the printing press , mathematics and so on .
The growth will probably stop eventually but it 's unlikely to occur before any kind of singularity happens , even if it does the world will be drastically different .
The planned 2012 IBM supercomputer should have about enough processing power to emulate a human brain ( its not doing that but they have the blue brain project underway ) , By 2025 a $ 1000 computer should have that power ( consider what the super computers of that time will have ) .
Unless you think Moore 's law is going to kick us all in the nuts in the next 15 years we should be well on our way .
Traditional Moore 's law ( as it applies to transistors on silicon ) should continue till some time around 2030 ( although some earlier limits are as low as 2020 and it might slow down things leading up to the point ) .
This does n't take into account the dozens of other non-traditional technologies under research that are n't Moore 's law relates : memsistors , photonic computing , DNA/quantum computing ( only useful for some specific computation but AI might apply ) , 3D-ICs , carbon nanotubes , graphite , spintronics .
After some kind of singularity ( assuming we survive ) we have no idea what the limits are , can we make new sub universes where the laws are better optimized for computing ?
or change the laws in some specific area ?
Can we use the theory of relativity to speed computation up ( ie I leave a computer on the planet and travel at close to the speed of light in a circle until it finishes number crunching , or hopefully some similar system on a chip ) ?
Can we find some ultimate universal loophole for infinite energy/computation ?
A cpu that works in an infinite number of parallel universes ?
Maybe we will hit the universal wall , but by that point it wo n't matter so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the exponential growth has been going on since the very first computer systems where made way back before Moore's law even existed, when they where still using vacuum tubes.
Arguably it goes back even further if you consider it to be systems for information processing rather than strictly computer systems.
Things like writing, transcribing books, the printing press, mathematics and so on.
The growth will probably stop eventually but it's unlikely to occur before any kind of singularity happens, even if it does the world will be drastically different.
The planned 2012 IBM supercomputer should have about enough processing power to emulate a human brain (its not doing that but they have the blue brain project underway), By 2025 a $1000 computer should have that power (consider what the super computers of that time will have).
Unless you think Moore's law is going to kick us all in the nuts in the next 15 years we should be well on our way.
Traditional Moore's law (as it applies to transistors on silicon) should continue till some time around 2030 (although some earlier limits are as low as 2020 and it might slow down things leading up to the point).
This doesn't take into account the dozens of other non-traditional technologies under research that aren't Moore's law relates: memsistors, photonic computing, DNA/quantum computing (only useful for some specific computation but AI might apply), 3D-ICs, carbon nanotubes, graphite, spintronics.
After some kind of singularity (assuming we survive) we have no idea what the limits are, can we make new sub universes where the laws are better optimized for computing?
or change the laws in some specific area?
Can we use the theory of relativity to speed computation up (ie I leave a computer on the planet and travel at close to the speed of light in a circle until it finishes number crunching, or hopefully some similar system on a chip)?
Can we find some ultimate universal loophole for infinite energy/computation?
A cpu that works in an infinite number of parallel universes?
Maybe we will hit the universal wall, but by that point it won't matter so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743403</id>
	<title>Makes sense...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1255528980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The smallest distance, with the fastest bus technology times the amount of cpus involved will be the factor in this, and I do think at some point as the article states, we will be able to get no smaller cpus, or no smaller serial bus etc.. there is a limit to the size before you just cant squeeze anything else from the getup. I know we are nowhere near yet, however...when it does happen, people will probably all have 1000cpu computers at home, and we will all be cluster networked for our downtime for some government project, and<br>everybody will be driving flying cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The smallest distance , with the fastest bus technology times the amount of cpus involved will be the factor in this , and I do think at some point as the article states , we will be able to get no smaller cpus , or no smaller serial bus etc.. there is a limit to the size before you just cant squeeze anything else from the getup .
I know we are nowhere near yet , however...when it does happen , people will probably all have 1000cpu computers at home , and we will all be cluster networked for our downtime for some government project , andeverybody will be driving flying cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The smallest distance, with the fastest bus technology times the amount of cpus involved will be the factor in this, and I do think at some point as the article states, we will be able to get no smaller cpus, or no smaller serial bus etc.. there is a limit to the size before you just cant squeeze anything else from the getup.
I know we are nowhere near yet, however...when it does happen, people will probably all have 1000cpu computers at home, and we will all be cluster networked for our downtime for some government project, andeverybody will be driving flying cars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742039</id>
	<title>Lem predicted this one too</title>
	<author>macson\_g</author>
	<datestamp>1255512000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stanisaw Lem in his novel "Fiasco" (1987) described concept of "ultimate computer" - computer that is constrained only by physical limits - like Planck constant and speed of light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stanisaw Lem in his novel " Fiasco " ( 1987 ) described concept of " ultimate computer " - computer that is constrained only by physical limits - like Planck constant and speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stanisaw Lem in his novel "Fiasco" (1987) described concept of "ultimate computer" - computer that is constrained only by physical limits - like Planck constant and speed of light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738679</id>
	<title>Yay, we did it again!</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1255434780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate it when they do that.  "this is the limit" really means "based on our current understanding of what's available, this is the limit" -- that's great for the present tense, and it's total garbage for the future tense -- not that english has a future tense, and this is precisely the reason.</p><p>But that's fine.  75 years huh?   There's a very slim possibility that I'll still be here to point and laugh in their face in 75 years.  But there's a virtual guarantee that I be able to point and laugh in their face when their boundary is busted long before then.</p><p>Welcome to logical induction, it's an heuristic, it doesn't actually work.  Stop basing important things on soft-physics.  Try hard-physics for a change.  You'll find it much more rewarding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate it when they do that .
" this is the limit " really means " based on our current understanding of what 's available , this is the limit " -- that 's great for the present tense , and it 's total garbage for the future tense -- not that english has a future tense , and this is precisely the reason.But that 's fine .
75 years huh ?
There 's a very slim possibility that I 'll still be here to point and laugh in their face in 75 years .
But there 's a virtual guarantee that I be able to point and laugh in their face when their boundary is busted long before then.Welcome to logical induction , it 's an heuristic , it does n't actually work .
Stop basing important things on soft-physics .
Try hard-physics for a change .
You 'll find it much more rewarding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate it when they do that.
"this is the limit" really means "based on our current understanding of what's available, this is the limit" -- that's great for the present tense, and it's total garbage for the future tense -- not that english has a future tense, and this is precisely the reason.But that's fine.
75 years huh?
There's a very slim possibility that I'll still be here to point and laugh in their face in 75 years.
But there's a virtual guarantee that I be able to point and laugh in their face when their boundary is busted long before then.Welcome to logical induction, it's an heuristic, it doesn't actually work.
Stop basing important things on soft-physics.
Try hard-physics for a change.
You'll find it much more rewarding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737767</id>
	<title>Maybe by then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe by then they will have invented a computer with more than one processor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe by then they will have invented a computer with more than one processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe by then they will have invented a computer with more than one processor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738731</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255435080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't this joke originally have a third person? He is a mathematician, and dies inside the room. They find a piece of paper with him, with "Let's first assume I can reach the treasure/cake..." written on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this joke originally have a third person ?
He is a mathematician , and dies inside the room .
They find a piece of paper with him , with " Let 's first assume I can reach the treasure/cake... " written on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this joke originally have a third person?
He is a mathematician, and dies inside the room.
They find a piece of paper with him, with "Let's first assume I can reach the treasure/cake..." written on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738417</id>
	<title>No Zen</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1255433400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual, Zen is ignored. They don't take into account that when nothing happens that can also be your computation (accuracy -&gt; oo).</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual , Zen is ignored .
They do n't take into account that when nothing happens that can also be your computation ( accuracy - &gt; oo ) .Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual, Zen is ignored.
They don't take into account that when nothing happens that can also be your computation (accuracy -&gt; oo).Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739013</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1255436940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I would be around 75-80 years from now, because it would be fun to look back on this research and shake my head in much the same manner people do when they read articles saying that by 1980, the world will be so over-populated that all of mankind will starve to death and become extinct.</p><p>It's easy to imagine various hypothetical ways that current technological advances could cease. It's much more difficult to predict ways that technology (and indeed, society) will continue to evolve and progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I would be around 75-80 years from now , because it would be fun to look back on this research and shake my head in much the same manner people do when they read articles saying that by 1980 , the world will be so over-populated that all of mankind will starve to death and become extinct.It 's easy to imagine various hypothetical ways that current technological advances could cease .
It 's much more difficult to predict ways that technology ( and indeed , society ) will continue to evolve and progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I would be around 75-80 years from now, because it would be fun to look back on this research and shake my head in much the same manner people do when they read articles saying that by 1980, the world will be so over-populated that all of mankind will starve to death and become extinct.It's easy to imagine various hypothetical ways that current technological advances could cease.
It's much more difficult to predict ways that technology (and indeed, society) will continue to evolve and progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742725</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>BuzzSkyline</author>
	<datestamp>1255521660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's 'cause i posted the wrong link. This is the right one

<a href="http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502" title="aps.org">http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502</a> [aps.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's 'cause i posted the wrong link .
This is the right one http : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [ aps.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's 'cause i posted the wrong link.
This is the right one

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [aps.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738071</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i not read the article, but can't you split the problem in half and have two machines work on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i not read the article , but ca n't you split the problem in half and have two machines work on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i not read the article, but can't you split the problem in half and have two machines work on it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738109</id>
	<title>Nothing interesting in article.</title>
	<author>line-bundle</author>
	<datestamp>1255432020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I RTFA but there is nothing in the article. Only talk of 75 years...</p><p>I remember one way to get an upper limit on frequency is using the equation E=hf, the Planck-Einstein relation. For a given amount of energy you can only get so much frequency. But this was a million years ago in my physics class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTFA but there is nothing in the article .
Only talk of 75 years...I remember one way to get an upper limit on frequency is using the equation E = hf , the Planck-Einstein relation .
For a given amount of energy you can only get so much frequency .
But this was a million years ago in my physics class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTFA but there is nothing in the article.
Only talk of 75 years...I remember one way to get an upper limit on frequency is using the equation E=hf, the Planck-Einstein relation.
For a given amount of energy you can only get so much frequency.
But this was a million years ago in my physics class.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</id>
	<title>What is the limit?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is that limit?  What units would you express such a limit in?  The fundamental unit of information is a bit, what is the fundamental unit of computation? Would you state that rate in "computations per second"? "Computations per second per cm^3"? "computations per second per gram?"</p><p>I checked out the pdf of the paper, and didn't see any numerical limit stated, just equations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is that limit ?
What units would you express such a limit in ?
The fundamental unit of information is a bit , what is the fundamental unit of computation ?
Would you state that rate in " computations per second " ?
" Computations per second per cm ^ 3 " ?
" computations per second per gram ?
" I checked out the pdf of the paper , and did n't see any numerical limit stated , just equations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is that limit?
What units would you express such a limit in?
The fundamental unit of information is a bit, what is the fundamental unit of computation?
Would you state that rate in "computations per second"?
"Computations per second per cm^3"?
"computations per second per gram?
"I checked out the pdf of the paper, and didn't see any numerical limit stated, just equations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738607</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255434480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As countless of such laments throughout recorded history have shown, worries about intellectual demise of the youth are greatly overblown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As countless of such laments throughout recorded history have shown , worries about intellectual demise of the youth are greatly overblown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As countless of such laments throughout recorded history have shown, worries about intellectual demise of the youth are greatly overblown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671</id>
	<title>Transistors Per IC and Planck Time</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1255430460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted 40 years ago that manufacturers could double computing speed every two years or so <br>by cramming ever-tinier transistors on a chip.</p></div><p>That's not exactly correct.  Moore's Law (or observation more like) reads <a href="ftp://download.intel.com/museum/Moores\_Law/Articles-Press\_Releases/Gordon\_Moore\_1965\_Article.pdf" title="intel.com">in the original article as</a> [intel.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000. I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer.</p></div><p>All he's concerned about is quoting how many components can fit on a single integrated circuit.  One can see this propagated to processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras but his observation itself is about the size of transistors -- not speed.  <br> <br>

The title should be "The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed" not Moore's Law.  <br> <br>

Furthermore, we've always had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck\_time" title="wikipedia.org">Planck Time</a> [wikipedia.org] as a lower bound on the time of one operation with our smallest measurement of time so far being 10^26 Planck Times.  So essentially they've bumped that lower bound up and it's highly likely more discoveries will bump that even further up.  I guess our kids and grandchildren have their work cut out for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted 40 years ago that manufacturers could double computing speed every two years or so by cramming ever-tinier transistors on a chip.That 's not exactly correct .
Moore 's Law ( or observation more like ) reads in the original article as [ intel.com ] : The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year ... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue , if not to increase .
Over the longer term , the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain , although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years .
That means by 1975 , the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000 .
I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer.All he 's concerned about is quoting how many components can fit on a single integrated circuit .
One can see this propagated to processing speed , memory capacity , sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras but his observation itself is about the size of transistors -- not speed .
The title should be " The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed " not Moore 's Law .
Furthermore , we 've always had Planck Time [ wikipedia.org ] as a lower bound on the time of one operation with our smallest measurement of time so far being 10 ^ 26 Planck Times .
So essentially they 've bumped that lower bound up and it 's highly likely more discoveries will bump that even further up .
I guess our kids and grandchildren have their work cut out for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted 40 years ago that manufacturers could double computing speed every two years or so by cramming ever-tinier transistors on a chip.That's not exactly correct.
Moore's Law (or observation more like) reads in the original article as [intel.com]:The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year ... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase.
Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.
That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000.
I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer.All he's concerned about is quoting how many components can fit on a single integrated circuit.
One can see this propagated to processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras but his observation itself is about the size of transistors -- not speed.
The title should be "The Ultimate Limit of Computing Speed" not Moore's Law.
Furthermore, we've always had Planck Time [wikipedia.org] as a lower bound on the time of one operation with our smallest measurement of time so far being 10^26 Planck Times.
So essentially they've bumped that lower bound up and it's highly likely more discoveries will bump that even further up.
I guess our kids and grandchildren have their work cut out for them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29775875</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255718880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite hardware to throw is the monitor. Unlike throwing a CPU or RAM at my computer, this actually gives you visual feedback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite hardware to throw is the monitor .
Unlike throwing a CPU or RAM at my computer , this actually gives you visual feedback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite hardware to throw is the monitor.
Unlike throwing a CPU or RAM at my computer, this actually gives you visual feedback.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738349</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last time I used that old "throw more hardware at it" line at my company it didn't go over really well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I used that old " throw more hardware at it " line at my company it did n't go over really well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I used that old "throw more hardware at it" line at my company it didn't go over really well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740333</id>
	<title>Not the right article</title>
	<author>mesri</author>
	<datestamp>1255447620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't anyone read the articles?  It says that the article in Phys. Rev. Lett. was published \_today\_, October 13, 2009.  The article that was linked to is two years old and not really relevant.

This is the one they're talking about:   	 <a href="http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502" title="aps.org" rel="nofollow">http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502</a> [aps.org]

There's a preprint at:  <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3417" title="arxiv.org" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3417</a> [arxiv.org]


The gist of it is that one can consider a fundamental step of a computation to be the evolution of a quantum system from a state to an orthogonal state  (cause if they aren't orthogonal, you're going to get the answer wrong).  They figure out the maximum rate at which the system can evolve between orthogonal states, which sets a maximum to the speed of the computation.

Turns out that the rate is proportional to the difference in energy of the two states -- which means that you can drive the computation faster by choosing two states that have very different energies.  But if you do that, since you need to have a power source driving the system between the two energy levels, you have to spend a lot of energy to keep the rate up.

Sort of obvious, but they work out the details with explicit lower bounds for the first time</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't anyone read the articles ?
It says that the article in Phys .
Rev. Lett .
was published \ _today \ _ , October 13 , 2009 .
The article that was linked to is two years old and not really relevant .
This is the one they 're talking about : http : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [ aps.org ] There 's a preprint at : http : //arxiv.org/abs/0905.3417 [ arxiv.org ] The gist of it is that one can consider a fundamental step of a computation to be the evolution of a quantum system from a state to an orthogonal state ( cause if they are n't orthogonal , you 're going to get the answer wrong ) .
They figure out the maximum rate at which the system can evolve between orthogonal states , which sets a maximum to the speed of the computation .
Turns out that the rate is proportional to the difference in energy of the two states -- which means that you can drive the computation faster by choosing two states that have very different energies .
But if you do that , since you need to have a power source driving the system between the two energy levels , you have to spend a lot of energy to keep the rate up .
Sort of obvious , but they work out the details with explicit lower bounds for the first time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't anyone read the articles?
It says that the article in Phys.
Rev. Lett.
was published \_today\_, October 13, 2009.
The article that was linked to is two years old and not really relevant.
This is the one they're talking about:   	 http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [aps.org]

There's a preprint at:  http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3417 [arxiv.org]


The gist of it is that one can consider a fundamental step of a computation to be the evolution of a quantum system from a state to an orthogonal state  (cause if they aren't orthogonal, you're going to get the answer wrong).
They figure out the maximum rate at which the system can evolve between orthogonal states, which sets a maximum to the speed of the computation.
Turns out that the rate is proportional to the difference in energy of the two states -- which means that you can drive the computation faster by choosing two states that have very different energies.
But if you do that, since you need to have a power source driving the system between the two energy levels, you have to spend a lot of energy to keep the rate up.
Sort of obvious, but they work out the details with explicit lower bounds for the first time</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742735</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>BuzzSkyline</author>
	<datestamp>1255521840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the correct link

<a href="http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502" title="aps.org">http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502</a> [aps.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the correct link http : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [ aps.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the correct link

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [aps.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743063</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else get the feeling...</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1255525860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>May I recommend to you Cory Doctorow's "True Names".</htmltext>
<tokenext>May I recommend to you Cory Doctorow 's " True Names " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I recommend to you Cory Doctorow's "True Names".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738573</id>
	<title>You mean mathematician instead of scientist</title>
	<author>g2devi</author>
	<datestamp>1255434300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scientist would not give up so easily.</p><p>The scientist would simply say that the wave function of the cake already overlaps with his wave function and take the cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scientist would not give up so easily.The scientist would simply say that the wave function of the cake already overlaps with his wave function and take the cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scientist would not give up so easily.The scientist would simply say that the wave function of the cake already overlaps with his wave function and take the cake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737941</id>
	<title>Parallel processing...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255431360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're already hitting clock speed "brownouts", and using parallel processing to get around them. To really tell where the limits are you need to look at how small you can make a processor (best case, something like say one bit per Planck length) and how much latency you can afford as information propagates from processor to processor at the speed of light or less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're already hitting clock speed " brownouts " , and using parallel processing to get around them .
To really tell where the limits are you need to look at how small you can make a processor ( best case , something like say one bit per Planck length ) and how much latency you can afford as information propagates from processor to processor at the speed of light or less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're already hitting clock speed "brownouts", and using parallel processing to get around them.
To really tell where the limits are you need to look at how small you can make a processor (best case, something like say one bit per Planck length) and how much latency you can afford as information propagates from processor to processor at the speed of light or less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738957</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I checked out the pdf of the paper, and didn't see any numerical limit stated, just equations.</p></div><p>That's because the linked PRL paper in the article summary is incorrect.  It is two years old, not "published today" like TFA states.  The actual PRL paper, published today, can be found <a href="http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&amp;id=PRLTAO000103000016160502000001&amp;idtype=cvips&amp;gifs=yes" title="aip.org" rel="nofollow">right here</a> [aip.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked out the pdf of the paper , and did n't see any numerical limit stated , just equations.That 's because the linked PRL paper in the article summary is incorrect .
It is two years old , not " published today " like TFA states .
The actual PRL paper , published today , can be found right here [ aip.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked out the pdf of the paper, and didn't see any numerical limit stated, just equations.That's because the linked PRL paper in the article summary is incorrect.
It is two years old, not "published today" like TFA states.
The actual PRL paper, published today, can be found right here [aip.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737807</id>
	<title>!speed</title>
	<author>sjfoland</author>
	<datestamp>1255430940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article uses speed and number of transistors interchangeably, which is misleading. From what I can tell, they are talking about chips with 10^16 billion transistors on them, not chips clocking at 4x10^16 GHz, which is what most people think of when they hear "speed".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article uses speed and number of transistors interchangeably , which is misleading .
From what I can tell , they are talking about chips with 10 ^ 16 billion transistors on them , not chips clocking at 4x10 ^ 16 GHz , which is what most people think of when they hear " speed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article uses speed and number of transistors interchangeably, which is misleading.
From what I can tell, they are talking about chips with 10^16 billion transistors on them, not chips clocking at 4x10^16 GHz, which is what most people think of when they hear "speed".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739493</id>
	<title>Re:Computing to what end</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started<br>&gt; wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more<br>&gt; computational power than 10^16 above what we have now.</p><p>1\% accurate minute by minute weather forecasts for each cubic kilometer of the Earth's atmosphere a full year in advance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started &gt; wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more &gt; computational power than 10 ^ 16 above what we have now.1 \ % accurate minute by minute weather forecasts for each cubic kilometer of the Earth 's atmosphere a full year in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; After reading some of the replies and think about the limit I started&gt; wondering about exactly what problems existed that would demand more&gt; computational power than 10^16 above what we have now.1\% accurate minute by minute weather forecasts for each cubic kilometer of the Earth's atmosphere a full year in advance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738163</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1255432260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need to be thinking with portals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to be thinking with portals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to be thinking with portals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741241</id>
	<title>Re:PDF on arxiv</title>
	<author>John.P.Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1255456860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why this is groundbreaking, from looking at the paper it seems that the key result is that the energy cost of a computational step is linearly proportional to the rate of computation, but this result is clearly derived in Feynman's lectures on computation.  So they just have different constants that arise due to their considerations of error correction and the like, the essential result isn't new at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why this is groundbreaking , from looking at the paper it seems that the key result is that the energy cost of a computational step is linearly proportional to the rate of computation , but this result is clearly derived in Feynman 's lectures on computation .
So they just have different constants that arise due to their considerations of error correction and the like , the essential result is n't new at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why this is groundbreaking, from looking at the paper it seems that the key result is that the energy cost of a computational step is linearly proportional to the rate of computation, but this result is clearly derived in Feynman's lectures on computation.
So they just have different constants that arise due to their considerations of error correction and the like, the essential result isn't new at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742121</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>chewy\_fruit\_loop</author>
	<datestamp>1255512660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the cake is a lie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the cake is a lie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the cake is a lie</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739651</id>
	<title>Re:Physicists said we could not exceed 2400 baud t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255441980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>v.34 is the last standard I'm aware of that didn't require anything special to operate.</p><p>It was less than 3600 baud at highest speed.  The actual throughput was 33,600 bits per second per channel, thanks to the advanced encoding, of course..</p><p>v.32 was 2,400 baud, giving 9,600 bits/sec per channel.  The 2,400 "baud" modems were actually 600 baud with 4-bits-per-baud.</p><p>v.90, and all of those other semi-digital systems aren't running over a normal phone line anymore, in essence.  DSL units are only linking you to the nearest CO.  Old school v.32 could connect you to any other point on the PSTN network without special, telco-side hardware.</p><p>Also, if you have a digital, T1-based phone system (PRI), each channel is only 64,000 bits-per-second.  You're definitely not overcoming THAT with any fancy tricks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>v.34 is the last standard I 'm aware of that did n't require anything special to operate.It was less than 3600 baud at highest speed .
The actual throughput was 33,600 bits per second per channel , thanks to the advanced encoding , of course..v.32 was 2,400 baud , giving 9,600 bits/sec per channel .
The 2,400 " baud " modems were actually 600 baud with 4-bits-per-baud.v.90 , and all of those other semi-digital systems are n't running over a normal phone line anymore , in essence .
DSL units are only linking you to the nearest CO. Old school v.32 could connect you to any other point on the PSTN network without special , telco-side hardware.Also , if you have a digital , T1-based phone system ( PRI ) , each channel is only 64,000 bits-per-second .
You 're definitely not overcoming THAT with any fancy tricks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>v.34 is the last standard I'm aware of that didn't require anything special to operate.It was less than 3600 baud at highest speed.
The actual throughput was 33,600 bits per second per channel, thanks to the advanced encoding, of course..v.32 was 2,400 baud, giving 9,600 bits/sec per channel.
The 2,400 "baud" modems were actually 600 baud with 4-bits-per-baud.v.90, and all of those other semi-digital systems aren't running over a normal phone line anymore, in essence.
DSL units are only linking you to the nearest CO.  Old school v.32 could connect you to any other point on the PSTN network without special, telco-side hardware.Also, if you have a digital, T1-based phone system (PRI), each channel is only 64,000 bits-per-second.
You're definitely not overcoming THAT with any fancy tricks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29754175</id>
	<title>Re:Physicists said we could not exceed 2400 baud t</title>
	<author>whoisisis</author>
	<datestamp>1255638480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Yet before we gave up on phone lines, the modem builders were giving us 56,000 baud connections.</p><p>Yeah, but isn't that done by compression of data? Send the compressed data with 28 kbaud.<br>Also if you look closely, the 56 kbaud is a theoretical upper limit, not generally met in reality.</p><p>On a phone line with only 4 kHz bandwidth, yeah, you can still only send about 28 kbaud.<br>Today, we use "phone lines" with much larger bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Yet before we gave up on phone lines , the modem builders were giving us 56,000 baud connections.Yeah , but is n't that done by compression of data ?
Send the compressed data with 28 kbaud.Also if you look closely , the 56 kbaud is a theoretical upper limit , not generally met in reality.On a phone line with only 4 kHz bandwidth , yeah , you can still only send about 28 kbaud.Today , we use " phone lines " with much larger bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Yet before we gave up on phone lines, the modem builders were giving us 56,000 baud connections.Yeah, but isn't that done by compression of data?
Send the compressed data with 28 kbaud.Also if you look closely, the 56 kbaud is a theoretical upper limit, not generally met in reality.On a phone line with only 4 kHz bandwidth, yeah, you can still only send about 28 kbaud.Today, we use "phone lines" with much larger bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738885</id>
	<title>The fastest computer physically possible...</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1255435980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... imagine a Beowulf cluster of those !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29751375</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255523160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and middle management outsources it to a third world country where they don't have such restrictive treasure approaching laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and middle management outsources it to a third world country where they do n't have such restrictive treasure approaching laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and middle management outsources it to a third world country where they don't have such restrictive treasure approaching laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738895</id>
	<title>Limit not well-defined</title>
	<author>curril</author>
	<datestamp>1255436040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the article doesn't appear to take into account is the difference between quantum computing and conventional computing.  A quantum computer doesn't carry out conventional binary operations so comparing the two is tricky. Doubling the number of q-bits a quantum computer can process effectively squares the number of equivalent binary operations it can carry out in one computation, but quantum computers are limited in what kinds of binary operations they can compute simultaneously.  So saying that a there is a fundamental limit on the number quantum operations per second doesn't necessarily give you a meaningful limit on the number of binary operations per second.  You need more information, such as the number of linked q-bits and the types of binary operations being performed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the article does n't appear to take into account is the difference between quantum computing and conventional computing .
A quantum computer does n't carry out conventional binary operations so comparing the two is tricky .
Doubling the number of q-bits a quantum computer can process effectively squares the number of equivalent binary operations it can carry out in one computation , but quantum computers are limited in what kinds of binary operations they can compute simultaneously .
So saying that a there is a fundamental limit on the number quantum operations per second does n't necessarily give you a meaningful limit on the number of binary operations per second .
You need more information , such as the number of linked q-bits and the types of binary operations being performed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the article doesn't appear to take into account is the difference between quantum computing and conventional computing.
A quantum computer doesn't carry out conventional binary operations so comparing the two is tricky.
Doubling the number of q-bits a quantum computer can process effectively squares the number of equivalent binary operations it can carry out in one computation, but quantum computers are limited in what kinds of binary operations they can compute simultaneously.
So saying that a there is a fundamental limit on the number quantum operations per second doesn't necessarily give you a meaningful limit on the number of binary operations per second.
You need more information, such as the number of linked q-bits and the types of binary operations being performed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741361</id>
	<title>Powerful enough</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1255458600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To build a computer that will fit on my desk that will be able to fake enough of the physics to simulate a person in a virtual world of their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To build a computer that will fit on my desk that will be able to fake enough of the physics to simulate a person in a virtual world of their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To build a computer that will fit on my desk that will be able to fake enough of the physics to simulate a person in a virtual world of their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738239</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>jcoy42</author>
	<datestamp>1255432740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note to parent: don't show this article to management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note to parent : do n't show this article to management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note to parent: don't show this article to management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742717</id>
	<title>Wrong Link in the Story!!!</title>
	<author>BuzzSkyline</author>
	<datestamp>1255521540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My bad, the link to the correct paper is this

<a href="http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502" title="aps.org">http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502</a> [aps.org]

Sorry kids.

Buzz</htmltext>
<tokenext>My bad , the link to the correct paper is this http : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [ aps.org ] Sorry kids .
Buzz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My bad, the link to the correct paper is this

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [aps.org]

Sorry kids.
Buzz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737835</id>
	<title>Passing the buck</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1255431000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, let's let the singularity first, then we'll let the robots take care of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , let 's let the singularity first , then we 'll let the robots take care of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, let's let the singularity first, then we'll let the robots take care of the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29746053</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else get the feeling...</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1255540440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to "compute" its own state?  That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit?  Once we hit the limit, our computations cease being simulations and become reality.</p></div><p>You're correct, proof:<br>A computer that has reaches the performance of the universe-computer, must necessarily be powerfull enough to simulate itself in real-time, because it is contained within the universe. Since a system can never simulate itself in real-time, no computer within this universe can reach the performance of the universe-computer.</p><p>Once our computer reaches the limit, it <i>is</i> the universe-computer and therefore <i>calculates</i> reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to " compute " its own state ?
That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit ?
Once we hit the limit , our computations cease being simulations and become reality.You 're correct , proof : A computer that has reaches the performance of the universe-computer , must necessarily be powerfull enough to simulate itself in real-time , because it is contained within the universe .
Since a system can never simulate itself in real-time , no computer within this universe can reach the performance of the universe-computer.Once our computer reaches the limit , it is the universe-computer and therefore calculates reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to "compute" its own state?
That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit?
Once we hit the limit, our computations cease being simulations and become reality.You're correct, proof:A computer that has reaches the performance of the universe-computer, must necessarily be powerfull enough to simulate itself in real-time, because it is contained within the universe.
Since a system can never simulate itself in real-time, no computer within this universe can reach the performance of the universe-computer.Once our computer reaches the limit, it is the universe-computer and therefore calculates reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740371</id>
	<title>Re:Form over function</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1255447860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>I'm just waiting for a peta-hertz computer with a 500 exabyte hard-drive able to do universe simulations in real time that will fit in my pocket</em> </p><p>It is impossible to simulate the universe. This is pretty easy to prove. If it was possible, using some device, to simulate the universe, then it is not actually necessary to simulate the universe -- we only need simulate the device which simulates the universe, since the device is necessarily contained within the universe. This should be easier, because the device itself is much smaller than the entire universe.</p><p>But if simulating the device which simulates the universe, is equivalent to simulating the universe, then that would mean that the complete set of states which define the universe can actually be represented by some subset of those very same states -- the subset of states which describe the device which is being used to simulate the universe. In other words, the universe is a set such that if you remove some subset of states you end up with the same set again. I hope you can see how this is a logical impossibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just waiting for a peta-hertz computer with a 500 exabyte hard-drive able to do universe simulations in real time that will fit in my pocket It is impossible to simulate the universe .
This is pretty easy to prove .
If it was possible , using some device , to simulate the universe , then it is not actually necessary to simulate the universe -- we only need simulate the device which simulates the universe , since the device is necessarily contained within the universe .
This should be easier , because the device itself is much smaller than the entire universe.But if simulating the device which simulates the universe , is equivalent to simulating the universe , then that would mean that the complete set of states which define the universe can actually be represented by some subset of those very same states -- the subset of states which describe the device which is being used to simulate the universe .
In other words , the universe is a set such that if you remove some subset of states you end up with the same set again .
I hope you can see how this is a logical impossibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm just waiting for a peta-hertz computer with a 500 exabyte hard-drive able to do universe simulations in real time that will fit in my pocket It is impossible to simulate the universe.
This is pretty easy to prove.
If it was possible, using some device, to simulate the universe, then it is not actually necessary to simulate the universe -- we only need simulate the device which simulates the universe, since the device is necessarily contained within the universe.
This should be easier, because the device itself is much smaller than the entire universe.But if simulating the device which simulates the universe, is equivalent to simulating the universe, then that would mean that the complete set of states which define the universe can actually be represented by some subset of those very same states -- the subset of states which describe the device which is being used to simulate the universe.
In other words, the universe is a set such that if you remove some subset of states you end up with the same set again.
I hope you can see how this is a logical impossibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738463</id>
	<title>Constrained Freedom</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1255433760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>per TFabstract: "errors that appear as a result of the interaction of the information-carrying system with uncontrolled degrees of freedom must be corrected."</p><p>Would not quantum teleportation via entanglement provide a means of distributing computation to include massively parallel? Quantum teleportation would provide a constraint that would redefine the problem by redefining the environment (ie. uncontrolled degrees of freedom). Replace Moore's Law with Bell's Theorem.</p><p>And does not quantum computing operate on all possible states, with the answer inherent in the wave function? Spew out the entangled qubits as needed and let them fight it out as a quantum form of Swarm.</p><p>If a result can be obtained this way, you may still have a problem with simultaneity -- the answer may arrive "before" the question, making it impossible to decode. However the problem then becomes a limitation of spacetime's ability to pass definitive information, and the limit of computation itself if such exists and/or can be measured in this context becomes moot. Being able to error trace via backtrack is similarly hampered but for the same reason and would still be possible post hoc.</p><p>But if a computational system is devised that can operate on such principles, and it is to be used for practical calculations, be aware that any defining of arguments will be restricted to the input end and results for comparison and decision making may not yet be available for such decisions (assuming a reasonable latitude of autonomous action). In which case, make sure you teach it phenomenology *before* putting it to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>per TFabstract : " errors that appear as a result of the interaction of the information-carrying system with uncontrolled degrees of freedom must be corrected .
" Would not quantum teleportation via entanglement provide a means of distributing computation to include massively parallel ?
Quantum teleportation would provide a constraint that would redefine the problem by redefining the environment ( ie .
uncontrolled degrees of freedom ) .
Replace Moore 's Law with Bell 's Theorem.And does not quantum computing operate on all possible states , with the answer inherent in the wave function ?
Spew out the entangled qubits as needed and let them fight it out as a quantum form of Swarm.If a result can be obtained this way , you may still have a problem with simultaneity -- the answer may arrive " before " the question , making it impossible to decode .
However the problem then becomes a limitation of spacetime 's ability to pass definitive information , and the limit of computation itself if such exists and/or can be measured in this context becomes moot .
Being able to error trace via backtrack is similarly hampered but for the same reason and would still be possible post hoc.But if a computational system is devised that can operate on such principles , and it is to be used for practical calculations , be aware that any defining of arguments will be restricted to the input end and results for comparison and decision making may not yet be available for such decisions ( assuming a reasonable latitude of autonomous action ) .
In which case , make sure you teach it phenomenology * before * putting it to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>per TFabstract: "errors that appear as a result of the interaction of the information-carrying system with uncontrolled degrees of freedom must be corrected.
"Would not quantum teleportation via entanglement provide a means of distributing computation to include massively parallel?
Quantum teleportation would provide a constraint that would redefine the problem by redefining the environment (ie.
uncontrolled degrees of freedom).
Replace Moore's Law with Bell's Theorem.And does not quantum computing operate on all possible states, with the answer inherent in the wave function?
Spew out the entangled qubits as needed and let them fight it out as a quantum form of Swarm.If a result can be obtained this way, you may still have a problem with simultaneity -- the answer may arrive "before" the question, making it impossible to decode.
However the problem then becomes a limitation of spacetime's ability to pass definitive information, and the limit of computation itself if such exists and/or can be measured in this context becomes moot.
Being able to error trace via backtrack is similarly hampered but for the same reason and would still be possible post hoc.But if a computational system is devised that can operate on such principles, and it is to be used for practical calculations, be aware that any defining of arguments will be restricted to the input end and results for comparison and decision making may not yet be available for such decisions (assuming a reasonable latitude of autonomous action).
In which case, make sure you teach it phenomenology *before* putting it to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741531</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1255461000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 75 years programming languages will be so abstracted for the sake of convenience that even <i>with</i> the extra processing power, programs will still run just as fast as they do today.</p><p>I'm looking forward to when we finally hit the wall.  Then we'll have <b>no other option</b> but to concentrate on programming efficiencies.  Unlike today's asinine <i>"Just throw a faster CPU and a few more gigs of RAM at the problem!"</i></p><p>Programmers who can think in Assembly languages  are simply <i>better</i> than today's script-aculous wanna-be's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 75 years programming languages will be so abstracted for the sake of convenience that even with the extra processing power , programs will still run just as fast as they do today.I 'm looking forward to when we finally hit the wall .
Then we 'll have no other option but to concentrate on programming efficiencies .
Unlike today 's asinine " Just throw a faster CPU and a few more gigs of RAM at the problem !
" Programmers who can think in Assembly languages are simply better than today 's script-aculous wan na-be 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 75 years programming languages will be so abstracted for the sake of convenience that even with the extra processing power, programs will still run just as fast as they do today.I'm looking forward to when we finally hit the wall.
Then we'll have no other option but to concentrate on programming efficiencies.
Unlike today's asinine "Just throw a faster CPU and a few more gigs of RAM at the problem!
"Programmers who can think in Assembly languages  are simply better than today's script-aculous wanna-be's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738089</id>
	<title>Shannon's law again ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you believe this then i have a truckload of 33.6 kilobaud modems that will be of  use to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe this then i have a truckload of 33.6 kilobaud modems that will be of use to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe this then i have a truckload of 33.6 kilobaud modems that will be of  use to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742091</id>
	<title>Re:Fundamental time unit</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1255512480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And for some algrothims that need previous results have not got faster. Not everything can be speed up by a || computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for some algrothims that need previous results have not got faster .
Not everything can be speed up by a | | computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for some algrothims that need previous results have not got faster.
Not everything can be speed up by a || computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741555</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255461540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EMO is a cheap imitation of goth, which is a subculture based of the (post-)punk movement of the UK.</p><p>Studies show that both Goths and Punks (as in kids who "confess" to the subculture) have higher average income at a later stage of life than an average UK citizen.</p><p>So even though we might find EMOs whiny and lame now, there is no reason to believe that they won't turn into productive members of society sooner or later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EMO is a cheap imitation of goth , which is a subculture based of the ( post- ) punk movement of the UK.Studies show that both Goths and Punks ( as in kids who " confess " to the subculture ) have higher average income at a later stage of life than an average UK citizen.So even though we might find EMOs whiny and lame now , there is no reason to believe that they wo n't turn into productive members of society sooner or later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EMO is a cheap imitation of goth, which is a subculture based of the (post-)punk movement of the UK.Studies show that both Goths and Punks (as in kids who "confess" to the subculture) have higher average income at a later stage of life than an average UK citizen.So even though we might find EMOs whiny and lame now, there is no reason to believe that they won't turn into productive members of society sooner or later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741975</id>
	<title>Quantum limits</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1255511280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, although the article doesn't state so, this is about yet another application of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - a principle that was inspired by the recognition that particles are also waves in some sense; the uncertainty arises because there is a limit to how much detail you can see when you observe by irradiating your target with particles of any given wave-length. IOW, it doesn't really say that "there is nothing to observe", but rather that there is a limit to the method of observation used.</p><p>This of course casts an entirely different light on the validity of absolute statements about the nature of the world on the very small scale; if one could find a method of observation, that wasn't subject to the limits in our current methods, we could improve significantly on Heisenberg's uncertainty. The very fact that QCD seems to work so well, suggests that there are details to be found beyond the 'Heisenberg limit'.</p><p>So, it is not entirely impossible that we will find a way round that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , although the article does n't state so , this is about yet another application of Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle - a principle that was inspired by the recognition that particles are also waves in some sense ; the uncertainty arises because there is a limit to how much detail you can see when you observe by irradiating your target with particles of any given wave-length .
IOW , it does n't really say that " there is nothing to observe " , but rather that there is a limit to the method of observation used.This of course casts an entirely different light on the validity of absolute statements about the nature of the world on the very small scale ; if one could find a method of observation , that was n't subject to the limits in our current methods , we could improve significantly on Heisenberg 's uncertainty .
The very fact that QCD seems to work so well , suggests that there are details to be found beyond the 'Heisenberg limit'.So , it is not entirely impossible that we will find a way round that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, although the article doesn't state so, this is about yet another application of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - a principle that was inspired by the recognition that particles are also waves in some sense; the uncertainty arises because there is a limit to how much detail you can see when you observe by irradiating your target with particles of any given wave-length.
IOW, it doesn't really say that "there is nothing to observe", but rather that there is a limit to the method of observation used.This of course casts an entirely different light on the validity of absolute statements about the nature of the world on the very small scale; if one could find a method of observation, that wasn't subject to the limits in our current methods, we could improve significantly on Heisenberg's uncertainty.
The very fact that QCD seems to work so well, suggests that there are details to be found beyond the 'Heisenberg limit'.So, it is not entirely impossible that we will find a way round that one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740617</id>
	<title>Ghosts or gods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This topic needs some theology. We will be truly masters of science when we earthly gods approach the physical limits of computation, as we now know it. What will we need or desire? And, why will we gods care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This topic needs some theology .
We will be truly masters of science when we earthly gods approach the physical limits of computation , as we now know it .
What will we need or desire ?
And , why will we gods care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This topic needs some theology.
We will be truly masters of science when we earthly gods approach the physical limits of computation, as we now know it.
What will we need or desire?
And, why will we gods care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675</id>
	<title>Subspace FTL field</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1255434780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the solution is very obvious.  Just put the entire computer in subspace field that creates a pocket of reality where the speed of light is faster (many times faster).  Course you then have to have some mechanism for speeding up and slowing down data coming in the ODN conduits.  It's been commonly done since the early 24th century.  All of these pesky "limits" can be worked around with some fancy level-three diagnostics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the solution is very obvious .
Just put the entire computer in subspace field that creates a pocket of reality where the speed of light is faster ( many times faster ) .
Course you then have to have some mechanism for speeding up and slowing down data coming in the ODN conduits .
It 's been commonly done since the early 24th century .
All of these pesky " limits " can be worked around with some fancy level-three diagnostics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the solution is very obvious.
Just put the entire computer in subspace field that creates a pocket of reality where the speed of light is faster (many times faster).
Course you then have to have some mechanism for speeding up and slowing down data coming in the ODN conduits.
It's been commonly done since the early 24th century.
All of these pesky "limits" can be worked around with some fancy level-three diagnostics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</id>
	<title>Efficiency</title>
	<author>truthsearch</author>
	<datestamp>1255430700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems?  Sigh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we 'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems ?
Sigh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems?
Sigh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739141</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!!</title>
	<author>khellendros1984</author>
	<datestamp>1255437960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moore's law didn't predict the clock speed at which processors run, but the number of transistors that can be fit on a chip. Today's 3.0GHz chips run faster than the ones from 5 years ago, due to various design changes that didn't impact the clock speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moore 's law did n't predict the clock speed at which processors run , but the number of transistors that can be fit on a chip .
Today 's 3.0GHz chips run faster than the ones from 5 years ago , due to various design changes that did n't impact the clock speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moore's law didn't predict the clock speed at which processors run, but the number of transistors that can be fit on a chip.
Today's 3.0GHz chips run faster than the ones from 5 years ago, due to various design changes that didn't impact the clock speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738311</id>
	<title>Re:10^16 times faster?</title>
	<author>Snarkalicious</author>
	<datestamp>1255432980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps.  But, unfortunately, this means that all jokes about Crysis are, in point of fact tragic mockeries of all those who own the game and will NEVER be able to play it at max settings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps .
But , unfortunately , this means that all jokes about Crysis are , in point of fact tragic mockeries of all those who own the game and will NEVER be able to play it at max settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps.
But, unfortunately, this means that all jokes about Crysis are, in point of fact tragic mockeries of all those who own the game and will NEVER be able to play it at max settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741589</id>
	<title>Can't wait</title>
	<author>marqs</author>
	<datestamp>1255462140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what you say is that i have to wait 80 years before buying the ultimate computer without feeling that there is just some new platform around the corner that will make my $2000 gaming rig look like a pocket calculator?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you say is that i have to wait 80 years before buying the ultimate computer without feeling that there is just some new platform around the corner that will make my $ 2000 gaming rig look like a pocket calculator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you say is that i have to wait 80 years before buying the ultimate computer without feeling that there is just some new platform around the corner that will make my $2000 gaming rig look like a pocket calculator?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739323</id>
	<title>Predictions just outside their lfietime = bull</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1255439220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So we'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems? Sigh...</i></p><p>You're going to place any stock in a prediction made by someone that will only come to fruition just outside their lifetime? Such predictions belong in a tent with a crystal ball.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we 'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems ?
Sigh...You 're going to place any stock in a prediction made by someone that will only come to fruition just outside their lifetime ?
Such predictions belong in a tent with a crystal ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems?
Sigh...You're going to place any stock in a prediction made by someone that will only come to fruition just outside their lifetime?
Such predictions belong in a tent with a crystal ball.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738119</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1255432080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So we'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems? Sigh...</p></div><p>No, you still won't be doing performance optimizations if that's not what makes the most money...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So we 'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems ?
Sigh...No , you still wo n't be doing performance optimizations if that 's not what makes the most money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we'll have to wait another 75 years before management lets us focus on application efficiency instead of throwing hardware at the performance problems?
Sigh...No, you still won't be doing performance optimizations if that's not what makes the most money...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738255</id>
	<title>Distance between objetcs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another problem is solving how to get data from between objects -  light can only travel so far between clock cycles, so while a processor may be capable of more and more cycles per second, we are already at the point where unimpeded light cannot travel more than a few inches per clock cycle - so other limitations would be on the size of motherboards, where the memory is located etc.</p><p>However such limits can be cheated for a while by using pre emption to get the data where it is needed before it is required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another problem is solving how to get data from between objects - light can only travel so far between clock cycles , so while a processor may be capable of more and more cycles per second , we are already at the point where unimpeded light can not travel more than a few inches per clock cycle - so other limitations would be on the size of motherboards , where the memory is located etc.However such limits can be cheated for a while by using pre emption to get the data where it is needed before it is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another problem is solving how to get data from between objects -  light can only travel so far between clock cycles, so while a processor may be capable of more and more cycles per second, we are already at the point where unimpeded light cannot travel more than a few inches per clock cycle - so other limitations would be on the size of motherboards, where the memory is located etc.However such limits can be cheated for a while by using pre emption to get the data where it is needed before it is required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738321</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scientist only makes it halfway out of the room though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scientist only makes it halfway out of the room though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scientist only makes it halfway out of the room though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740011</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255444620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What he means is; we started out with the intel 4004 at 740kHz, the first PCs ran at 4.77MHz, then it went fast, 10Mhz, 12Mhz, 16Mhz,  33MHz, 66 with "OverDrive", etc. In the meantime DEC Alpha processors were in the triple-digit range. x86 caught up and surpassed, but at around 4 Ghz it hit a ceiling. Overclockers are able to go to 8Ghz for a short while.</p><p>Instead of going faster, cores became more optimized and doubled, quadrupled, and octocores are around the corner if not here already. However, the "Turbo" mode in the i5/i7 shows that cranking up the clock frequency still helps for single/low threaded applications.</p><p>So, why don't we have 8, 16, or 24 GHz clock frequencies? Is this only because of limitations (memory) bus speeds or is this because of silicon heat dissipation problems?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What he means is ; we started out with the intel 4004 at 740kHz , the first PCs ran at 4.77MHz , then it went fast , 10Mhz , 12Mhz , 16Mhz , 33MHz , 66 with " OverDrive " , etc .
In the meantime DEC Alpha processors were in the triple-digit range .
x86 caught up and surpassed , but at around 4 Ghz it hit a ceiling .
Overclockers are able to go to 8Ghz for a short while.Instead of going faster , cores became more optimized and doubled , quadrupled , and octocores are around the corner if not here already .
However , the " Turbo " mode in the i5/i7 shows that cranking up the clock frequency still helps for single/low threaded applications.So , why do n't we have 8 , 16 , or 24 GHz clock frequencies ?
Is this only because of limitations ( memory ) bus speeds or is this because of silicon heat dissipation problems ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he means is; we started out with the intel 4004 at 740kHz, the first PCs ran at 4.77MHz, then it went fast, 10Mhz, 12Mhz, 16Mhz,  33MHz, 66 with "OverDrive", etc.
In the meantime DEC Alpha processors were in the triple-digit range.
x86 caught up and surpassed, but at around 4 Ghz it hit a ceiling.
Overclockers are able to go to 8Ghz for a short while.Instead of going faster, cores became more optimized and doubled, quadrupled, and octocores are around the corner if not here already.
However, the "Turbo" mode in the i5/i7 shows that cranking up the clock frequency still helps for single/low threaded applications.So, why don't we have 8, 16, or 24 GHz clock frequencies?
Is this only because of limitations (memory) bus speeds or is this because of silicon heat dissipation problems?
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742731</id>
	<title>Re:PDF on arxiv</title>
	<author>BuzzSkyline</author>
	<datestamp>1255521780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the correct link
<a href="http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502" title="aps.org">http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502</a> [aps.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the correct link http : //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [ aps.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the correct link
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 [aps.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738693</id>
	<title>Re:WHAT!!</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1255434900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"so in 80 years my computers processors wont be able to get any faster"</i>
<br> <br>
looks like we've almost reached that point now. We've had <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030807060543/www.pricewatch.com/" title="archive.org" rel="nofollow">Xeon 3.0GHz cpus for over 5 years now</a> [archive.org], and they're <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/08/13/1431209/AMDs-Phenom-II-965-34GHz-140-Watts-245" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">still coming out with brand new 3ghz processors</a> [slashdot.org]. That's a long time to not see a jump in speed, what happened to "doubling every 18 months"? We should be around 24ghz by now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" so in 80 years my computers processors wont be able to get any faster " looks like we 've almost reached that point now .
We 've had Xeon 3.0GHz cpus for over 5 years now [ archive.org ] , and they 're still coming out with brand new 3ghz processors [ slashdot.org ] .
That 's a long time to not see a jump in speed , what happened to " doubling every 18 months " ?
We should be around 24ghz by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"so in 80 years my computers processors wont be able to get any faster"
 
looks like we've almost reached that point now.
We've had Xeon 3.0GHz cpus for over 5 years now [archive.org], and they're still coming out with brand new 3ghz processors [slashdot.org].
That's a long time to not see a jump in speed, what happened to "doubling every 18 months"?
We should be around 24ghz by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740469</id>
	<title>Pfaugh! Utter rubbish!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My - soon-to-be (oh, in a couple of decades or so) - higgs boson (see previous post) based fpu dirac-sea interwave (hence extra ortho-temporal) calculators will immediately avoid all 'answers-that-should-not-be' (metallica?) and place the right answer complex at precisely the same time-space-reality point as the posing of the question. Or sooner, if desired. More advanced versions could supply the answer as the decision to pose it develops. As a shortend-path return-wave artifact, or some other banality. For the terminally lazy, the system could just choose any answer, serve it, and higgs-bosonify the questioning reality into conformity.</p><p>Those chaps are obviously in the 'no rocks in space', 'no heavier than air / faster than sound flight'... category. Just ignore them. They eventually go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My - soon-to-be ( oh , in a couple of decades or so ) - higgs boson ( see previous post ) based fpu dirac-sea interwave ( hence extra ortho-temporal ) calculators will immediately avoid all 'answers-that-should-not-be ' ( metallica ?
) and place the right answer complex at precisely the same time-space-reality point as the posing of the question .
Or sooner , if desired .
More advanced versions could supply the answer as the decision to pose it develops .
As a shortend-path return-wave artifact , or some other banality .
For the terminally lazy , the system could just choose any answer , serve it , and higgs-bosonify the questioning reality into conformity.Those chaps are obviously in the 'no rocks in space ' , 'no heavier than air / faster than sound flight'... category. Just ignore them .
They eventually go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My - soon-to-be (oh, in a couple of decades or so) - higgs boson (see previous post) based fpu dirac-sea interwave (hence extra ortho-temporal) calculators will immediately avoid all 'answers-that-should-not-be' (metallica?
) and place the right answer complex at precisely the same time-space-reality point as the posing of the question.
Or sooner, if desired.
More advanced versions could supply the answer as the decision to pose it develops.
As a shortend-path return-wave artifact, or some other banality.
For the terminally lazy, the system could just choose any answer, serve it, and higgs-bosonify the questioning reality into conformity.Those chaps are obviously in the 'no rocks in space', 'no heavier than air / faster than sound flight'... category. Just ignore them.
They eventually go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961</id>
	<title>Reminds me of a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A scientist and an engineer are lead into a room.  They are asked to stand on one side.  On the opposite side is Treasure (or delicious cake if you please).</p><p>They are told that they may have the prize if they can reach it, however they may never go more than half the distance between them and it.</p><p>The scientist balks claiming it is obviously impossible as he can NEVER reach the prize and leaves the room.  The engineer shrugs, and walks halfway to the prize 10 times or so, says "close enough" and takes it.</p><p>So I guess we'll just see, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A scientist and an engineer are lead into a room .
They are asked to stand on one side .
On the opposite side is Treasure ( or delicious cake if you please ) .They are told that they may have the prize if they can reach it , however they may never go more than half the distance between them and it.The scientist balks claiming it is obviously impossible as he can NEVER reach the prize and leaves the room .
The engineer shrugs , and walks halfway to the prize 10 times or so , says " close enough " and takes it.So I guess we 'll just see , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A scientist and an engineer are lead into a room.
They are asked to stand on one side.
On the opposite side is Treasure (or delicious cake if you please).They are told that they may have the prize if they can reach it, however they may never go more than half the distance between them and it.The scientist balks claiming it is obviously impossible as he can NEVER reach the prize and leaves the room.
The engineer shrugs, and walks halfway to the prize 10 times or so, says "close enough" and takes it.So I guess we'll just see, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740045</id>
	<title>Simple Simple Solution</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1255445100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The simple solution at that point is to go parallel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple solution at that point is to go parallel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple solution at that point is to go parallel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738455</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does this shit always get +5 insightful? It mostly comes from non-programmers who have no idea what they're saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does this shit always get + 5 insightful ?
It mostly comes from non-programmers who have no idea what they 're saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does this shit always get +5 insightful?
It mostly comes from non-programmers who have no idea what they're saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738781</id>
	<title>Re:Are there really limits?</title>
	<author>stevelinton</author>
	<datestamp>1255435320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The limit is on the amount of computation you can do per gram per second. Unless your computer was VERY VERY dense and compact (close to being a black hole, in fact) then it would have to be parallel to achieve this limit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The limit is on the amount of computation you can do per gram per second .
Unless your computer was VERY VERY dense and compact ( close to being a black hole , in fact ) then it would have to be parallel to achieve this limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The limit is on the amount of computation you can do per gram per second.
Unless your computer was VERY VERY dense and compact (close to being a black hole, in fact) then it would have to be parallel to achieve this limit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739113</id>
	<title>Re:What is the limit?</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1255437660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The paper referenced above is at <a href="http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701237" title="arxiv.org">arXiv</a> [arxiv.org], and doesn't give a maximum computer speed per see. It just proves that a quantum running at R computational steps per second, will generate Q = hR^2, of heat, where h is plancks constant. The other limits was that R &lt; 4E/h, where E is the average energy of the system. You might get a maximum computing speed out of this, but only if you have a fundamental limit to how fast you can cool the computer. Not sure where the're fundamental limit come from if not in the above paper.
<p>
---
</p><p>
Personally I think, Moore's Law will run out somewhere the early 2020s, and have <a href="http://internetfutureuk.blogspot.com/2009/09/chip-of-future-ad-2020.html" title="blogspot.com">blogged</a> [blogspot.com] about what such a computer might be specced as.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The paper referenced above is at arXiv [ arxiv.org ] , and does n't give a maximum computer speed per see .
It just proves that a quantum running at R computational steps per second , will generate Q = hR ^ 2 , of heat , where h is plancks constant .
The other limits was that R --- Personally I think , Moore 's Law will run out somewhere the early 2020s , and have blogged [ blogspot.com ] about what such a computer might be specced as .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The paper referenced above is at arXiv [arxiv.org], and doesn't give a maximum computer speed per see.
It just proves that a quantum running at R computational steps per second, will generate Q = hR^2, of heat, where h is plancks constant.
The other limits was that R 
---

Personally I think, Moore's Law will run out somewhere the early 2020s, and have blogged [blogspot.com] about what such a computer might be specced as.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743145</id>
	<title>Re:PDF on arxiv - same basic content</title>
	<author>mhwombat</author>
	<datestamp>1255527000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They are the same in essence but not identical. The PRL version appears to have been edited for format and brevity: section headings removed, equations placed in-line etc. There are also a few more material changes such as rearranged paragraphs.
</p><p>
The basic content and equations seem to be all the same so far as I could see.
</p><p>
The PRL version seems more recent, but the arxiv version is actually more readable IMO as it takes up half a page more room and is split into clearly-titled sections.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are the same in essence but not identical .
The PRL version appears to have been edited for format and brevity : section headings removed , equations placed in-line etc .
There are also a few more material changes such as rearranged paragraphs .
The basic content and equations seem to be all the same so far as I could see .
The PRL version seems more recent , but the arxiv version is actually more readable IMO as it takes up half a page more room and is split into clearly-titled sections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They are the same in essence but not identical.
The PRL version appears to have been edited for format and brevity: section headings removed, equations placed in-line etc.
There are also a few more material changes such as rearranged paragraphs.
The basic content and equations seem to be all the same so far as I could see.
The PRL version seems more recent, but the arxiv version is actually more readable IMO as it takes up half a page more room and is split into clearly-titled sections.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738201</id>
	<title>PDF on arxiv</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1255432560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thermodynamic cost of reversible computing<br>thermo-arxiv<br>February 1, 2008<br>Lev B. Levitin and Tommaso Toffoli</p><p><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701237v2" title="arxiv.org">http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701237v2</a> [arxiv.org]</p><p>Not sure it is the same as in the Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 110502 (2007) -- linked from the article  -- which is from 2007</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thermodynamic cost of reversible computingthermo-arxivFebruary 1 , 2008Lev B. Levitin and Tommaso Toffolihttp : //arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701237v2 [ arxiv.org ] Not sure it is the same as in the Phys .
Rev. Lett .
99 , 110502 ( 2007 ) -- linked from the article -- which is from 2007Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thermodynamic cost of reversible computingthermo-arxivFebruary 1, 2008Lev B. Levitin and Tommaso Toffolihttp://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701237v2 [arxiv.org]Not sure it is the same as in the Phys.
Rev. Lett.
99, 110502 (2007) -- linked from the article  -- which is from 2007Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741613</id>
	<title>Re:Subspace FTL field</title>
	<author>BarMonger</author>
	<datestamp>1255462560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's been commonly done since the early 24th century.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Hubert Farnsworth: That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been commonly done since the early 24th century.Hubert Farnsworth : That 's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been commonly done since the early 24th century.Hubert Farnsworth: That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741091</id>
	<title>I call BS.</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1255454640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>K, Here's how I see it.<br>
I can accept that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.<br> <br>
That means that there is a temperature at which nothing can be colder (absolute zero) and a temperature in which nothing can be hotter (the temperature at which all molecular and atomic motion is done at the speed of light).
<br> <br>
But I can't see a physical limit to what they're describing, because it's wrong.<br> <br>
Here's why:
<br>
I create a holographic projector. it's about the size of a housecat. it creates a holographic image that is the size of 24x30x200 Jamesisawesomes (that's a term for something that makes up the things that make up the things that make up the things that make up the smallest things we know about now). Even though nothing can physically be that small, I've created a hard drive that is virtually that small, allowing for the creation and operation of a ridiculously tiny hard drive that can hold a near-infinite amount of data.<br> <br>
The flaw in their argument is that they assume we won't discover something "smaller than that" which can be used to catapult our technology one more step into the infinite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>K , Here 's how I see it .
I can accept that nothing can move faster than the speed of light .
That means that there is a temperature at which nothing can be colder ( absolute zero ) and a temperature in which nothing can be hotter ( the temperature at which all molecular and atomic motion is done at the speed of light ) .
But I ca n't see a physical limit to what they 're describing , because it 's wrong .
Here 's why : I create a holographic projector .
it 's about the size of a housecat .
it creates a holographic image that is the size of 24x30x200 Jamesisawesomes ( that 's a term for something that makes up the things that make up the things that make up the things that make up the smallest things we know about now ) .
Even though nothing can physically be that small , I 've created a hard drive that is virtually that small , allowing for the creation and operation of a ridiculously tiny hard drive that can hold a near-infinite amount of data .
The flaw in their argument is that they assume we wo n't discover something " smaller than that " which can be used to catapult our technology one more step into the infinite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>K, Here's how I see it.
I can accept that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
That means that there is a temperature at which nothing can be colder (absolute zero) and a temperature in which nothing can be hotter (the temperature at which all molecular and atomic motion is done at the speed of light).
But I can't see a physical limit to what they're describing, because it's wrong.
Here's why:

I create a holographic projector.
it's about the size of a housecat.
it creates a holographic image that is the size of 24x30x200 Jamesisawesomes (that's a term for something that makes up the things that make up the things that make up the things that make up the smallest things we know about now).
Even though nothing can physically be that small, I've created a hard drive that is virtually that small, allowing for the creation and operation of a ridiculously tiny hard drive that can hold a near-infinite amount of data.
The flaw in their argument is that they assume we won't discover something "smaller than that" which can be used to catapult our technology one more step into the infinite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740935</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else get the feeling...</title>
	<author>gumpish</author>
	<datestamp>1255453080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to "compute" its own state? That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit? Once we hit the limit, our computations cease being simulations and become reality.</p></div></blockquote><p>Lay off the bong hits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to " compute " its own state ?
That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit ?
Once we hit the limit , our computations cease being simulations and become reality.Lay off the bong hits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the ultimate limit is the processes that the universe itself uses to "compute" its own state?
That we can only ever asymptotically approach this limit?
Once we hit the limit, our computations cease being simulations and become reality.Lay off the bong hits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29767025</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else get the feeling...</title>
	<author>phision</author>
	<datestamp>1255693680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And maybe actually the universe is single threaded and nothing happens simultaneously. It is just too fast and we do not notice it. The "parallel" computing will be of no help in this case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And maybe actually the universe is single threaded and nothing happens simultaneously .
It is just too fast and we do not notice it .
The " parallel " computing will be of no help in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And maybe actually the universe is single threaded and nothing happens simultaneously.
It is just too fast and we do not notice it.
The "parallel" computing will be of no help in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737779</id>
	<title>Might Prove A Vinge novel correct?</title>
	<author>adriccom</author>
	<datestamp>1255430820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about the nature of computation and lightspeed and the like as explored in the wonderful novel <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812515285?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=adrnet-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=0812515285" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">A Fire Upon The Deep (Zones of Thought)</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>in which the universe has depth and the depth determines how fast things can go including neural tissue, computation, and intergalactic travel. I have long suspected that Earth is towards the shallow end<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about the nature of computation and lightspeed and the like as explored in the wonderful novel A Fire Upon The Deep ( Zones of Thought ) [ amazon.com ] in which the universe has depth and the depth determines how fast things can go including neural tissue , computation , and intergalactic travel .
I have long suspected that Earth is towards the shallow end .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about the nature of computation and lightspeed and the like as explored in the wonderful novel A Fire Upon The Deep (Zones of Thought) [amazon.com]in which the universe has depth and the depth determines how fast things can go including neural tissue, computation, and intergalactic travel.
I have long suspected that Earth is towards the shallow end ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29744845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29775875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29755335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29751375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29746401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29748011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29767025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29746053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29745493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29753331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29750411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29745509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29754175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29751639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_2022244_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29750371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29751375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739027
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29751639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29748011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29744845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29775875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29747893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29754175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29767025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29746053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29753331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29746401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29755335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29750371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29745509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29750411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29739111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29743599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29740829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29742473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29745493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29737779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29738295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_2022244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_2022244.29741277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
