[OT] colonial weapons (Moore's Theorem)

Randall said:

*cough*  It's Moore's Law.  It's a tongue-in-cheek 
"joke" in hacker/computer jargon. 

[Tomb] Randall, just FYI: I teach TCP/IP 
programming for Internet applications at our 
college and I have a background in both 
Electronics, Electrical Engineering, and Software 
Development. I have a pretty darn good idea of 
Moore's Law, its origins and whatnot (which is the 
underlying basis of my prior comment). I don't go 
back quite so far as Alan making PDP's in a kitchen, 
but I've wirewrapped my own microprocessor 
system and written code to drive it in assembler 
burn onto ROMs. I have a pretty good idea of who 
Moore is, what he said, the paper he released on 
the subject, etc. And the Jargon File is a 
questionable resource or reference, despite its 
pretensions of grandeur or even adequacy. 

Similar to Gate's
Law, Parkinson's Law of Data, and Murphy's Law.

[Tomb] My point was that not ONE of these justly 
deserves to be called a Law in any rigorous sense. 
At best, a half-assed Theorem. 

>From dictionary.com, the pertinent parts of the 
definition of Law in the context of science are:

1) A statement describing a relationship 
observed to be invariable between or among 
phenomena for all cases in which the specified 
conditions are met: the law of gravity. 
2) . In philosophy and physics: A rule of being, 
operation, or change, so certain and constant that 
it is conceived of as imposed by the will of God 
or by some controlling authority; as, the law of 
gravitation; the laws of motion; the law heredity; 
the laws of thought; the laws of cause and effect; 
law of self-preservation.

Any of the "alleged" Laws you mention above 
are at best theorems given the fact that they 
cannot be mathematically proven for all cases 
and that we have not undergone sufficient time 
and exhaustive study as to consider them proven. 

On the topic particularly of Moore's "Law", 
there have been many allegations about how 
Moore's "Law" will cease to apply in the none 
too distant future (there have, fairly, been 
arguments on the other side). One basis for 
attacking Moore's Law is the basic physical 
limits which will be reached sometime along the 
line which limit the minimum size of a switching 
element (the core of a processor) based on 
certain atomic size limitations. 

I'm not even saying Moore's "Law" is a terrible 
theory - it has held out for longer than people 
would have suspected. But to call it a Law is 
more than vaguely insulting to real science as it 
is number based pseudo-science and 
(temporarily supported) conjecture. It is this 
exact slackness that is part of what is keeping 
computer engineering from being properly 
integrated with the rest of the engineering 
profession. (There are other reasons).

>[Tomb] It always takes tech complexity to make 
the state ofthe art item with state of the art 
efficiency and features.If you are willing to settle 
for a lesser feature set andapply state of the art 
engineering to building somethingrobust and simple 
(rarely done in the real world because
>people want features and there is no market), 
you CANproduce something far more robust and 
simple.

Not true...  Robust and simple are OFTEN built in 
the real world.

[Tomb] I'm more than happy to randomly point to a 
hundred instances of an overly complex mechanical 
or electronic system in my daily environment. 
Feature-rich is a buzzword. It sells. Thus the world 
is full of non-simple devices and systems. If it were 
otherwise, many modern systems would be far 
more reliable. I didn't imply that we never built 
robust, simple stuff. We just spend a lot of time 
making things fancy or feature-rich or snazzy 
looking. Often to the detriment of the end product 
which could have been better enhanced by more 
testing, fewer features, more reliability.

  The problem is, these terms are _really_ 
subjective terms. 

[Tomb] Conceded. However, in the sense of a 
colonial piece of equipment, there is a clear 
absolute standard: how does it do its job, and how 
long does it last. 

 Simple and robust chips are much more complex 
and unreliable when compared to fire-starting 
equipment like a lighter. 

[Tomb] Even this statement is problematic. I think 
modern computer memory could be considered 
simple, but these will last 15 years? Will the 
lighter? And aren't you comparing apples and 
oranges? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare 
a zippo to a modern piezo-electric lighter with an 
element that can put out 2000 degrees? Or to 
compare a 386 chip rated for the space program 
(simple, in this comparison, and robust) to a 
bleeding edge AMD chip? Which is more robust? 

 Which is much more complex than say a match.  
Most first run products are simple, feature-poor 
commodities. It's the 2.0 and beyond that get nasty.

[Tomb] In an economic sense, most prototypes are 
either underengineered or overengineered 
(probably in equal measure or a bit of both). As 
time goes by, things get made lighter (sometimes 
at the cost of durability - who needs a 286 to last 
20  years? We throw it out in 5), sometimes 
features get added. Sometimes later models are 
refined with the edges taken off (leatherman tools 
are an example) and sometimes they are feature-
heavy bloaters with dubious reliability. 

Simple and robust are not always easier to 
manufacture either.  It is a simple procedure you 
can do in the house to create Oxygen and 
Hydrogen, (both fairly unstable in this
condition).  Many other forms of fire-starting 
equipment require massive refineries, complex 
chemical processes, etc.  Still, when it comes down 
to it...  I'd rather a match to start my fire.

[Tomb] The match is a fairly simple construct. 
Simple, robust, and does the job well. Of course, so 
might a zippo. Robustness is not always easy to 
engineer into an object. Part of this challenge is 
dependent on the nature of the object and its 
function. Simplicity can be hard to engineer in if the 
task it must perform is complex. But the absence of 
simplicity introduces plenty of room for mistakes 
and plenty of places for failures. Complexity is the 
enemy of Robustness. This is ultimately the basic 
lesson of Reliability Engineering. Herein we learn 
that, for systems of high reliability (0.97 or better I 
recall), the optimal number of redudant parallel 
switched backups is 2-3. Beyond that, the 
complexity you are introducing actually reduces 
your overall reliability. Complexity and fancy neato 
gee whiz features sell new cars in a showroom on 
Albion. The ability for a binary propellant rifle to 
function reliably when submersed in muck is much 
more of a selling feature on Slimobia III. 

Tomb

---------------------------------------------
Thomas Barclay
Co-Creator of http://www.stargrunt.ca 
Stargrunt II and Dirtside II game site
"In God We Trust... on Cold Steel We Depend."