That depends on how one defines "powerful", does not it?
You didn't define it in any way. You referenced Moore's law, but that only talks about transistor density and not "power". Lacking any specifics at all, it's only fair to compare it with traditional improvements in "power" that everybody recognized as going along with Moore's law -- those that occurred for decades before the 2002 wall.
But the improvements, which we continue to get, can still be put to a good use improving usage.
You made the hefty claim that computers today are 1,024 times more powerful than 15 years ago, and placed blame on software for not following along. That's bullshit.
For one example, try make -jN â" Unix kernel and make really scales with the number of CPUs. A build will finish about N times faster â" provided, you have N CPUs.
So where is your desktop with 1,024 cores? Oh that's right, you have nothing close to that. And even if you did, you'd be severely limited by Amdahl's law, which you should spend some time to figure out the significance of it. Unless your task is embarrassingly parallel, even a small amount of required serialization will catch up with you sooner rather than later.
But that does not mean, there is no one to blame...
It's not about being nice. It's about recognizing the reality of the situation instead of just saying that somebody else should make everything work like I want it to.