The problem with this statement: Moore's Law was formulated (as an empirical approximation) in the current age of Physics. Simulating any meaningfully complex high-level system, such as intelligence, with particle-sized granularity/precision requires Physics that delves deeper than those particles themselves; i.e. simulating particles with particles is, well, just plain redundant, and might as well just be done experimentally.

So, if I knowingly incite somebody to commit murder, I'm not to blame, right?

No, that's called Accessory to Murder.

In a sense, you're right, modern Philosophy doesn't have much immediate value; Philosophy has never even had tangible value, immediate or otherwise. The value that Philosophy has, and always has had, is in refining how we perceive--and thus subconsciously process--this strange realm we call reality. It's a subtle effect, but it's definitely there and quite pervasive. Take the study of ethics, for instance: I think we can agree that John Rawls is considerably more "modern" than most of Philosophy, but yet his arguments shed light on swath of ethical structures that had never been before categorized in such a way.

The fact is, philosophy is literally everywhere that there are living, thinking people: Politicians' worldviews dictate policy decisions. Mathematicians' worldviews direct and inspire new mathematical mechanisms. Scientists' worldviews drive paradigm shifts. Joe Nobody's worldview lets him eat pork and beans on a Friday night. There's nowhere you can go without running into it.

Our own cognitive abilities are far more malleable and prone to deception than it seems most people realize. The fruits of studying Philosophy, even if on the side, aren't found by merely understanding the arguments posited by philosophers, but in developing sane and contiguous perceptions of reality.

And I'd argue that the academia of which you speak are shooting themselves--and their students--in the foot. Of all my Physics professors, the best were the ones who clearly had thoroughly thought out their philosophical standpoint. Admittedly, it's not very public or advertized, but when it comes to the professor-pupil relationship, I'm convinced that teachers having gaping holes in their worldview paves the road to their student's failure. This is the case regardless of where they are on the educational totem pole, it just seems easier to spot when studying the hard sciences.

sounds a lot like...

which sounds a lot like...

...and you see where I'm going. It's called "boiling it down", in case you were wondering.

But, seriously, what do you have against Philosophy? I'm willing to bet you weren't very appreciative of History class, either.

And it remains a descendent: Science research eventually relies upon arguments set forth by Mathematics, which relies upon arguments set forth by Philosophy.

Heck, even the fact that you can have a logical argument relies upon the work of Philosophers. The biggest reason why modern Philosophers are not typically proficient Scientists boils down to the fact that they likely occupy their time reading different books, and thus aren't well-versed in the necessary esoterica.

This is exactly how it works. The only difference is, at longer wavelength/lower frequencies, the size/density of objects that are considered opaque is higher (a person is roughly large/dense enough to block RF, a toothbrush is not), while each photon is less easily scattered or refracted.

You could even go so far as to say the perceived color also depends upon the channel within the Wi-Fi spectrum, much like the false-colored images of non-visible astronomical imagery (e.g.: Cosmic Microwave Background radiation).

I'm a physicist and software engineer, and although I agree that the idea is fantastic, I'm skeptical of the execution. Photovoltaics, as I understand, are economically less viable than concentrated solar power (even Concentrated Photovoltaics, which are more efficient than your run-of-the-mill solar panel, aren't quite there yet), particularly in the form of Solar Power Towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower). I'm not sure what the obsession is with solar panels: they're not only resource-intensive, but they're still quite inefficient (commercial units now have ~20% efficiency, only recently has research broken the 30% limit). They require materials that are more difficult to obtain (rare earths) than what's require to build Solar power towers (steel, lots of steel, and water).

Please, somebody tell me what the obsession with photovoltaic solar power is...

So, I'm just going to go with the assumption you mean to search torrent trackers for scans of print textbooks: this in no way adheres to the qualification "without a textbook". If you've ever tried to actually use a DjVu or PDF textbook in any reasonably advanced field (senior year Physics classes are painful, proper textbook regardless), you quickly realize that a lot is lost in translation. That, and the chances of bringing your digital textbook in for an open-book exam are nil.

Oh, and never mind the ethical conflict.

Now where's an off-topic mod when you need it?

Just to add to the endless litany of "...zeroes and ones..." comments:

So, we should be able to ask Rogers to read off his medical history to a full audience and not expect him to care, right?