34:
313:. As I understand it, the graph shows that the time gap between paradigm shifts is getting smaller as each subsequent shift takes place (the paradigm shifts being identfied by the authors in the legend). The implication is that we will reach some sort of technological singularity when the curve intersects the x-axis.
293:
Then perhaps you can explain what the 15 shifts are, based on the information present in the graph. Or perhaps you could explain what the point of the graph even is. Something about plotting time since present against time to next "event" on a logarithmic scale strikes me (on the face of it) as
373:- The diagram is ridiculous and highly misleading. As Pstuart has said, it implies a technological singularity. For arithmetic reasons, it points to the present as the projected time of singularity, and it must do so regardless of the events plotted. I explained this in more detail at
422:
412:
132:
I can't for the life of me tell what it is trying to depict. Paradigm shifts, But paradigms of what? And the timeline is next to unreadable, as well.
17:
166:
what Clegs said, plus it's just a simple graph with no wow, what ever the bigger implications may be, it's not special as a picture I am afraid.
417:
361:
254:
per others, hardly gripping out of context, and can it really be CC when the differences from
Kurzweil's graph are trivial? ~~
358:
265:
238:
398:
386:
365:
341:
322:
303:
288:
269:
242:
210:
194:
175:
158:
141:
124:
83:
374:
224:
53:
349:- very nice diagram, but having examined it at full size I still haven't got a clue what any of it means. β
355:
48:, as seen by fifteen different lists of key events. There is a clear trend of smooth acceleration through
299:
285:
154:
49:
45:
318:
87:
294:
somewhat circular, but that could well be because I don't know what the graph is trying to show.
261:
234:
118:
350:
337:
190:
171:
33:
382:
295:
282:
185:
per Clegs. I note the original was by Ray
Kurzweil, whose writing I find obscure as well.
150:
137:
278:
203:
314:
207:
41:
406:
256:
229:
114:
99:
331:
220:
186:
95:
277:
because
Knowledge (XXG) is not a valid source. You will need to plot some based
167:
395:
378:
133:
202:
I have removed it from the articles. I think this is pretty clear-cut
281:(and I disagree with most of the "too hard to understand" opposes).
223:, not some Wikipedian. A near-identical graph is on p.19 of
73:
and I feel it is of
Knowledge (XXG)'s highest quality
64:I feel this meets all of the criteria because
70:visually contributes to the articles it is in
8:
330:Sorry, another pile-on vote. Clegs said it.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
67:it is of high-resolution and high-quality
32:
219:I've put it back. The synthesis is by
423:Featured picture nominations/May 2008
7:
413:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
80:Articles this image appears in
1:
227:, as the image page says. ~~
28:Fifteen major paradigm shifts
418:Featured picture nominations
439:
84:Technological singularity
399:07:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
387:00:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
375:Talk:Accelerating_change
366:17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
342:02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
323:16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
304:16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
289:06:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
270:20:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
243:20:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
211:06:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
195:03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
176:02:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
159:01:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
142:00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
125:00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
225:The Singularity is Near
54:technological evolution
57:
36:
108:Support as nominator
50:biological evolution
46:history of the world
88:Accelerating change
58:
321:
430:
334:
317:
279:reliable sources
122:
121:
438:
437:
433:
432:
431:
429:
428:
427:
403:
402:
332:
123:
113:
112:
98:; recreated by
42:paradigm shifts
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
436:
434:
426:
425:
420:
415:
405:
404:
390:
389:
368:
344:
325:
308:
307:
306:
272:
248:
247:
246:
245:
214:
213:
197:
179:
178:
161:
144:
127:
111:
104:
103:
102:in SVG format.
93:
90:
81:
77:
76:
75:
74:
71:
68:
62:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
435:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
410:
408:
401:
400:
397:
394:
393:Not promoted
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
367:
364:
363:
360:
357:
352:
348:
345:
343:
339:
335:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
291:
290:
287:
284:
280:
276:
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
253:
250:
249:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:
226:
222:
218:
217:
216:
215:
212:
209:
205:
201:
198:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
160:
156:
152:
148:
145:
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:
126:
120:
116:
109:
106:
105:
101:
97:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
79:
78:
72:
69:
66:
65:
63:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
392:
391:
370:
354:
351:Vanderdecken
346:
327:
310:
274:
255:
251:
228:
221:Ray Kurzweil
199:
187:Pete Tillman
182:
163:
146:
129:
107:
96:Ray Kurzweil
37:
27:
149:per Clegs.
407:Categories
296:Matt Deres
151:Matt Deres
115:TIM KLOSKE
315:Pstuart84
208:Thegreenj
52:and then
100:Tkgd2007
40:- Major
38:Original
333:Crassic
311:Comment
200:Comment
92:Creator
44:in the
371:Oppose
347:Oppose
328:Oppose
275:Oppose
252:Oppose
183:Oppose
168:Mfield
164:Oppose
147:Oppose
130:Oppose
61:Reason
396:MER-C
379:Dzhim
134:Clegs
16:<
383:talk
338:talk
319:Talk
300:talk
283:gren
191:talk
172:talk
155:talk
138:talk
119:TALK
336:! (
286:γ°γ¬γ³
409::
385:)
377:.
353:β΄
340:)
302:)
268:)
241:)
206:.
204:OR
193:)
174:)
157:)
140:)
110:--
86:,
381:(
362:Ο
359:ΞΎ
356:β«
298:(
266:c
264:/
262:t
260:(
257:N
239:c
237:/
235:t
233:(
230:N
189:(
170:(
153:(
136:(
117:|
56:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
