You apparently fail to understand WP:NOR rules.  In this talk page you raised a strawman argument of uncertainty in dates and areal densities for which I have found reliable sources as to RAMAC areal density and dates and as to the 2006 state-of-the-art areal density and dates.  I then performed a routine calculation for both the nominal CAGR and the worst case (lowest) CAGR which is always allowed on talk pages and can be used in an article with consent.  You have routinely performed such calculations and posted them to articles without obtaining consent so I don't think you can now object to the calculation per se, either here or in the article.  These calculations show that in the worst case the 1956-2006 AD CAGR exceeds 41.4%, one of the several and most common expressions of Moore's Law. I could do similar calculations for any year from 2004 to at least 2009, starting in 1956 or 1958,  Nothing you have said rebuts or in any way contradicts this. 
 ::::If you have nothing new to say, perhaps it is time to let some other editors in?