A singularity might be considered an event initiating very dramatic change. It could range from a meteorite strike to technological advancement. In either case the upcoming event is preceded by a period of time called the event horizon. Not enough information regarding the change can escape to the past to produce a viable prediction of events following the singularity. The truth is that each second is an event horizon.
No information escapes to the past. So what we are really talking about is another of a long string of important technological breakthroughs that have led from the first thrown rock to supercomputers.
The Singularity we enjoy speculating on is the constant gradual increase in machine intelligence. There is no reason to believe that this increase will stop or slow down. On the contrary this constant increase in intelligence has been approaching since the big bang. It started with the intelligence inherent in matter and progressed to biological intelligence driven by the motivation to pass on information in the DNA molecule. This increase in biological intelligence has led to technology and in this world superior technology has led to increased chances of passing that DNA into the future.
As machine intelligence increases it feeds upon itself and increases the rate of improvement. It is increasing tremendously faster than the rate of biological improvement. One of the things to be discussed here will be whether the society that eventually develops the machines whose abstract thinking exceeds the human will dominate or share or be victims like the rest.
Regardless of the answer to these questions it is inevitable that excluding the real possibility of a cataclysm, machines will get smarter and the limits are unknowable.
Speculate yourself silly, cheers rd (bob) hanson
quantum sausage machine 
The simplest definition proposed is that intelligence is whatever intelligence tests measure. But this definition does not characterize the ability well, and it has several problems. First, it is circular: The tests are assumed to verify the existence of intelligence, which in turn is measurable by the tests. Second, many different intelligence tests exist, and they do not all measure the same thing. In fact, the makers of the first intelligence tests did not begin with a precise idea of what they wanted to measure. Finally, the definition says very little about the specific nature of intelligence.
Whenever scientists are asked to define intelligence in terms of what causes it or what it actually is, almost every scientist comes up with a different definition. For example, in 1921 an academic journal asked 14 prominent psychologists and educators to define intelligence. The journal received 14 different definitions, although many experts emphasized the ability to learn from experience and the ability to adapt to one’s environment. In 1986 researchers repeated the experiment by asking 25 experts for their definition of intelligence. The researchers received many different definitions: general adaptability to new problems in life; ability to engage in abstract thinking; adjustment to the environment; capacity for knowledge and knowledge possessed; general capacity for independence, originality, and productiveness in thinking; capacity to acquire capacity; apprehension of relevant relationships; ability to judge, to understand, and to reason; deduction of relationships; and innate, general cognitive ability. msn encarta
Cool story, ZF! So how come you aren’t selling your material on Amazon, lulu, or where-ever? or are you and I just haven’t noticed?
victor storiguard
In cheshire cat end I think I would be stuck on the first level for a long time before I was worthy