Archive for December, 2008

More encouraging feedback

3 updates in one day – it is getting out of hand, I know…

I have stumbled across two encouraging posts about Jame5 that I would like to share. The first is by Constantin Gonzalez from his BarCamp Munich 2008 summary:

Another great way to think about the future is to read Stefan Pernar’s sci-fi thriller “Jame5 – A Tale of Good and Evil”. This book starts in the best Michael Crichton style and then becomes a deep and thoughtful discussion around the philosophy of the future, when mankind confronts the powers of strong AI. […] Highly recommended.

Secondly Marc Garnaut was kind enough to write about Jame5 on his blog:

I’ve been immersed in a book recently. It’s a fictional story, but it’s based on a lot of scientific fact. A bit like The Matrix or anything in the cyberpunk genre by authors like Neal Stephenson or William Gibson.

Much obliged gentlemen, much obliged indeed. Did I mention that I am still looking for a publisher? Hint! Hint! 🙂

Comments (2)

Scientific manipulation of beliefs

A very interesting piece on the maliability of beliefs using the example of the origin of life being the result of devine creation or a result of natural laws has been put up on Science Daily. Belief control being a central concept of cognitive evolution in Jame5 I found the article rather fitting.

Comments

Moore’s Law alife and kicking for the foreseeable future

The folks over at Future Blogger are reporting in a very detailed piece that there is no end in sight for Moore’s Law. They assert that when the prevelant technology in microchip manufacturing since the late 1960s called CMOS will hit a brick wall in 2011, chip manufacturers will have to resort to nanotechnology for feature sizes below 22 nanometer.

They foresee a move from largely 2D chips towards 3D chips and acknowledge the importance of the recently discovered Memristor as well as breakthroughs in molecular transistor technology. Both significant discoveries in regards to keeping Moore’s Law relevant in the next decades.

The exact quote happens to escape me, but I recall having read something along the lines that in principles there are no natural laws preventing continued miniaturization in computation all the way down to the Planck scale.

Comments