Newsgroup Discussion of the Need for Basic Research to supplement paper "The Internet: A New Communications Paradigm" Path: news.columbia.edu!merhaba!rh120 From: rh120@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 18 Nov 1998 03:19:55 GMT Organization: Columbia University Lines: 17 Message-ID: <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> Reply-To: rh120@columbia.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: merhaba.cc.columbia.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204023 James W. Adams (jadams@NO.SPAM.PLEASE) wrote: : In reading over a Bell Labs publication on information systems planning : from the mid 1960s the other day, I was struck by the failure of current : business information systems to realize many of the envisioned goals. : As the business management market is by far the preeminent market for : computing-related products, this is clearly significant. And we have lost Bell Labs as well. Ronda ronda@panix.com Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!207.24.196.41!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!news From: Dennis Ritchie Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 07:18:22 +0000 Organization: Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies Lines: 7 Message-ID: <365274BE.5FE4@bell-labs.com> References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> Reply-To: dmr@bell-labs.com NNTP-Posting-Host: cebu.cs.bell-labs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; U) Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204034 Ronda Hauben wrote: > And we have lost Bell Labs as well. (Pinches oneself). No, still alive. ŠDennis Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.ultranet.com!d7 From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Wed, 18 Nov 98 11:19:59 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 16 Message-ID: <72ubln$j8a$4@strato.ultra.net> References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <365274BE.5FE4@bell-labs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d7.dial-16.mbo.ma.ultra.net X-Complaints-To: abuse@ultra.net X-Ultra-Time: 18 Nov 1998 11:39:35 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204042 In article <365274BE.5FE4@bell-labs.com>, Dennis Ritchie wrote: >Ronda Hauben wrote: > >> And we have lost Bell Labs as well. > >(Pinches oneself). No, still alive. Chuckle. Unless that was a virtual punch, I mean, pinch. And this person seems to be active in trying to direct the tide of the politicians w.r.t. the use of computers. Is anybody worried? /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!posted-from-earthlink!not-for-mail From: JeffreyFarkas@earthlink.net (Jeff Farkas) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 09:33:22 -0500 X-ELN-Insert-Date: Wed Nov 18 06:35:11 1998 References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 Organization: Earthlink.Net X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: ip237.stamford6.ct.pub-ip.psi.net X-ELN-Date: 18 Nov 1998 14:29:11 GMT Message-ID: Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204050 In article <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, rh120@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu says... > James W. Adams (jadams@NO.SPAM.PLEASE) wrote: > > : In reading over a Bell Labs publication on information systems planning > : from the mid 1960s the other day, I was struck by the failure of current > : business information systems to realize many of the envisioned goals. Š> : As the business management market is by far the preeminent market for > : computing-related products, this is clearly significant. > > And we have lost Bell Labs as well. Two words Ronda, Lucent Technologies. > > Ronda > ronda@panix.com > > Netizens: On the History and Impact > of Usenet and the Internet > http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook > also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 > Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!news1.cstone.net!news.COMET.NET!not-for-mail From: jadams@NO.SPAM.PLEASE (James W. Adams) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 18 Nov 1998 16:28:44 -0500 Organization: UNIX Internals, Charlottesville, VA Lines: 44 Message-ID: <72ve6c$52n@jamesa.cstone.net> References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: jamesa.cstone.net X-Trace: Skuzzy.cstone.net 911424803 17273 206.205.42.225 (18 Nov 1998 21:33:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.cstone.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Nov 1998 21:33:23 GMT Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204062 In article <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>, Ronda Hauben wrote: > >And we have lost Bell Labs as well. No, just the name, along with much of the funding and most of the perception of its strategic importance. Same with IBM's Watson labs and the system of national laboratories. Perhaps some of this is due to a lack of recognition among scientists of the importance of keeping the public at least conceptually aware of the work they were funding. Some is also due to various environmental disasters and other calamities which shook the public's somewhat irrational faith in the absolute goodness of science and technology. Unfortunately, instead of exercising damage control, many scientists simply withdrew deeper into obscurity until the "Golden Fleece" awards seemed to be totally rational as their work had diverged from anything the public could remotely see the importance of. Most however seems to reflect a broadening of the influence of those who first stripmined the capital base of the American economy and Šthen proceeded to do the same with the wealth of accumulated fundamental research while investing less and less in basic research for the future. NSF, who fund the majority of basic research outside the biomedicine field in America, have an annual budget of just $3.5 billion, about 20% of the annual budget for the drug war alone, and less than twice the dollar amount spent during WW II to develop the atomic bomb, without even correcting for inflation. The only NSF known to most Americans is the National Sanitation Foundation. Nearly all research funding is now coupled tightly to patents and short term profits, while visionary projects without immediate applicability go begging. The inherent value of understanding and human knowledge is less and less appreciated. We have all but forgotten Franklin's reply to a question about the utility of some new invention: "What good is a newborn baby?" -- James W. Adams -- jamesa @ cstone.net <-- remove spaces "I became obsessed with angels and ballerinas, things of grace and beauty, otherworldly." Charlottesville, VA 22903 --C. Love From: mentifex@scn.org (Mentifex) Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Organization: Mentifex PD AI : www.scn.org/~mentifex/ Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains X-Priority: 1 (Too Late) Message-ID: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> Date: 18 Nov 98 21:46:29 GMT Lines: 36 NNTP-Posting-Host: vifa1.freenet.victoria.bc.ca Path: news.columbia.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!news.areti.net!ayres.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!awabi.library.ucla.edu!137.82.194.1!unixg.ubc.ca!aurora.cs.athabascau.ca!news.mag-net.com!newsfeed.bctel.net!news.pinc.com!news.victoria.tc.ca!199.60.222.3 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204064 comp.arch:78830 comp.unix.admin:87896 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains:22002 Dennis Ritchie made light of a serious situation: > >Ronda Hauben wrote: > >> And we have lost Bell Labs as well. > >(Pinches oneself). No, still alive. > > Dennis And the beta-males and the gamma-males joined in the wolfpack: > Chuckle. Unless that was a virtual punch, I mean, pinch. > And this person seems to be active in trying to direct > the tide of the politicians w.r.t. the use of computers. > Is anybody worried? > /BAH No, Dave Farber isn't worried; Esther Dyson isn't worried. Š The drunks on the barstools are not worried, nor are the computer complacent who poke fun at Ronda Hauben's minor gaffes. But a hundred and some nations around the world who are about to get disenfranchised from the once free Internet must be a littled worried by now, judging from the recent telecommunications meeting at which they tried to resist the US govt privatization. Oh, excuse me (Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex), I used a Ronda-ism in the form of "govt" for government! In her noble fight on behalf of "liberte' egalite' fraternite'" and all those other trifles which probably nauseate you and move you to deride her, Ronda Hauben mangles the English language and lets you have your fun. But Ronda Hauben is not a gutless, spineless, complacent wimp. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!wn3feed!135.173.83.25!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!207.24.196.41!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!news From: Dennis Ritchie Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:53:18 +0000 Organization: Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies Lines: 21 Message-ID: <3653DC7E.672@bell-labs.com> References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <72ve6c$52n@jamesa.cstone.net> Reply-To: dmr@bell-labs.com NNTP-Posting-Host: cebu.cs.bell-labs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; U) Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204089 James W. Adams wrote: > > Ronda Hauben wrote: > > > >And we have lost Bell Labs as well. > > No, just the name, along with much of the funding and most of the > perception of its strategic importance. Same with IBM's Watson labs > and the system of national laboratories. > Last evening I pinched myself (and found I at least was still alive and at Bell Labs.) Today I attended talks by Stoermer and Laughlin in the Bell Labs auditorium at which the introducer welcomed us to the Third Annual Presentation by Bell Lab's Nobel Laureates for the current year. (Doug Osheroff 1996; Steve Chu 1997; Stoermer, Laughlin, Tsui 1998). Not dead yet, and still in possession of the name. Looked at the company logo? And funding seems OK. Dennis Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.ultranet.com!d13 From: jmfbahciv@aol.com ŠNewsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Thu, 19 Nov 98 11:30:56 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 28 Message-ID: <7310mi$aqi$3@strato.ultra.net> References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <72ve6c$52n@jamesa.cstone.net> <3653DC7E.672@bell-labs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d13.dial-17.mbo.ma.ultra.net X-Complaints-To: abuse@ultra.net X-Ultra-Time: 19 Nov 1998 11:50:42 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204110 In article <3653DC7E.672@bell-labs.com>, Dennis Ritchie wrote: >James W. Adams wrote: >> >> Ronda Hauben wrote: >> > >> >And we have lost Bell Labs as well. >> >> No, just the name, along with much of the funding and most of the >> perception of its strategic importance. Same with IBM's Watson labs >> and the system of national laboratories. >> >Last evening I pinched myself (and found I at least was still >alive and at Bell Labs.) Today I attended talks by Stoermer >and Laughlin in the Bell Labs auditorium at which the introducer >welcomed us to the Third Annual Presentation by Bell Lab's >Nobel Laureates for the current year. (Doug Osheroff 1996; >Steve Chu 1997; Stoermer, Laughlin, Tsui 1998). > >Not dead yet, and still in possession of the name. Looked >at the company logo? And funding seems OK. Yup. I suspect they're confusing your neck of the woods with by old stomping ground :-). /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:45:44 +0000 Organization: Cannine Computer Center Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3654BBB8.D3352A2C@plano.net> References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <72ve6c$52n@jamesa.cstone.net> Reply-To: richmond@plano.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.44.41.243 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ŠX-Trace: 911544100 R67V8VHUD29F3D12CC usenet53.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 (Macintosh; I; 68K) To: "James W. Adams" Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204177 James W. Adams wrote: > > [nsip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > Nearly all research funding is now coupled tightly to patents and short > term profits, while visionary projects without immediate applicability > go begging. The inherent value of understanding and human knowledge is > less and less appreciated. We have all but forgotten Franklin's reply to > a question about the utility of some new invention: "What good is a > newborn baby?" > Let me say this: THE SUPERCONDUCTING SUPERCOLIDER!!! Yup, I *am* shouting! Canceling the SSC was one of the *studpidest* things this or any government *ever* did!!! All of the discoveries in electronics, physics, medicine (yes, medicine), and other branches of science were simultaneously *annialated*!!! Most people would consider a person who *eats* his seed corn to be very dense and dufus-headed indeed. And that is what the US did here...destroying the future for everyone all around the world! -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.fast.net!news.fast.net!not-for-mail From: "Doctor Memory" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 17:05:20 -0500 Organization: FASTNET(tm) PA/NJ/DE Internet Lines: 9 Message-ID: <734ouo$l77$1@news1.fast.net> References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: maxtnt02-abe-232.fast.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204217 Ronda Hauben wrote in message <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>... >And we have lost Bell Labs as well. Not only do we still have Bell Labs, but they're bringing back Western Electric! Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!spamkiller1.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!194.72.7.126!btnet-peer!btnet-feed1!btnet!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk ŠNewsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 21 Nov 1998 02:19:18 GMT Lines: 72 Message-ID: <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-107.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: irk.zetnet.co.uk 911614758 31327 194.247.40.137 (21 Nov 1998 02:19:18 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Nov 1998 02:19:18 GMT X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204228 comp.arch:78886 comp.unix.admin:87990 (sorry c.p.t.d, I really must get an editor that can handle lines of over 80 characters. Unless you can put multiple Newsgroups: lines in headers...?) On 1998-11-18 mentifex@scn.org(Mentifex) said: :Dennis Ritchie made light of a serious situation: > :>Ronda Hauben wrote: :>> And we have lost Bell Labs as well. :>(Pinches oneself). No, still alive. :And the beta-males and the gamma-males joined in the wolfpack: You do know that Dennis Ritchie invented C, don't you? Oh good. :> Chuckle. Unless that was a virtual punch, I mean, pinch. :> And this person seems to be active in trying to direct :> the tide of the politicians w.r.t. the use of computers. :> Is anybody worried? And BAH is something of an alpha-female in these parts. Really, your gaffes are quite entertaining, but your research is lamentable. Still, I suppose it's nice to know you have places other than comp.lang.forth to pester. :No, Dave Farber isn't worried; Esther Dyson isn't worried. :The drunks on the barstools are not worried, nor are the :computer complacent who poke fun at Ronda Hauben's minor gaffes. It makes sense for someone so intent on influencing one of the more important decisions in cyberspace to be well-informed, don't you think? But what of the other authorities? In particular, what of the international bodies, not based in the US, who will continue to operate as they have before, regardless of the ownership of the Stateside authorities? The net's a big place these days, and certainly not even the actions of one of the governments involved will bring it to its knees. :But a hundred and some nations around the world who are about :to get disenfranchised from the once free Internet must be a Š :littled worried by now, judging from the recent telecommunications :meeting at which they tried to resist the US govt privatization. Isn't the central naming authority based in the middle of Europe somewhere? Isn't W3C based in Switzerland? Don't you think that saying things like "disenfranchised" is a bit over the top? :Oh, excuse me (Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex), I used a Ronda-ism :in the form of "govt" for government! In her noble fight on :behalf of "liberte' egalite' fraternite'" and all those other :trifles which probably nauseate you and move you to deride her, :Ronda Hauben mangles the English language and lets you have your :fun. She mangled her *facts*. You know, those things that form the basis of logical arguments? Oh, maybe not... :But Ronda Hauben is not a gutless, spineless, complacent wimp. Nobody said she was, though if she could choose her allies she might exercise a little more taste. On the other hand, where precisely do you get off, deciding to flame someone who happens to *be* at Bell Labs for pointing out that Bell Labs are still very much alive, taking a factual correction as justification for throwing the terms "gutless", "spineless" and "complacent" around? Please, bring a clue next time. -- Communa (lisard@zetnet.co.uk) -- you know soft spoken changes nothing Path: news.columbia.edu!news.new-york.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!netnews.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.ultranet.com!d11 From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Sat, 21 Nov 98 13:00:01 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 35 Message-ID: <736em6$i5u$4@ligarius.ultra.net> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: d11.dial-11.mbo.ma.ultra.net X-Complaints-To: abuse@ultra.net X-Ultra-Time: 21 Nov 1998 13:20:06 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204264 In article <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk>, lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote: >On 1998-11-18 mentifex@scn.org(Mentifex) said: > :Dennis Ritchie made light of a serious situation: > > :>Ronda Hauben wrote: > :>> And we have lost Bell Labs as well. > > :>(Pinches oneself). No, still alive. > > :And the beta-males and the gamma-males joined in the wolfpack: Š> >You do know that Dennis Ritchie invented C, don't you? Oh good. > > :> Chuckle. Unless that was a virtual punch, I mean, pinch. > :> And this person seems to be active in trying to direct > :> the tide of the politicians w.r.t. the use of computers. > :> Is anybody worried? > >And BAH is something of an alpha-female in these parts. Really, your >gaffes are quite entertaining, but your research is lamentable. Still, I >suppose it's nice to know you have places other than comp.lang.forth to >pester. I'm quite puzzled here. I never post to comp.lang.forth and I didn't know that I made a gaffe. Is it possible that the attributes got mixed up? And I was kidding around with the pinch/punch comment to Mr. Ritchie. Or have I misread your replies to the myriad comments that have crept into this post? /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. Message-ID: <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:35:36 -0600 From: Del Cecchi Reply-To: dcecchi@ibm.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.32.235 X-Trace: 22 Nov 1998 01:31:08 GMT, 32.100.32.235 Organization: IBM.NET Lines: 49 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news3.ibm.net!32.100.32.235 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204296 comp.arch:78905 comp.unix.admin:88020 James W. Adams wrote: > > > :Dennis Ritchie made light of a serious situation > > > >You do know that Dennis Ritchie invented C, don't you? Oh good. > > I am quite impressed with Mr. Ritchie's accomplishments, but science > doesn't accept arguments of authority for good reason. > > Everybody makes mistakes sometimes. Einstein arguably did with the Š> Cosmological Constant, Pauling did with both vitamin C as well as > publishing a proposed structure for DNA which met all available > X-ray crystallographic requirements but wasn't an acid. > > In my view, Ritchie is being absurdly complacent, even arrogant, > in proposing that all is well because he may be comfortable. > > Nobel prizes are like "Man of the Year." They are awarded anyway, > and the fact that a bunch of Lucent employees may have won them > if anything indicates that there isn't as much competition as > there should be. > > Lucent doesn't have anywhere near the funding or commitment that > its predecessors had in the 1950s and 1960s, and to claim otherwise > is absurd. The very fact that it was spun off should serve as > evidence of that. > > The fact is that basic, fundamental research in America is in the > doldrums, and the ignorant, opportunistic attitudes of most top > managers (such as Bill Gates) will keep it there for the foreseeable > future unless people bring pressure to change those attitudes. > > -- > James W. Adams -- jamesa @ cstone.net <-- remove spaces > "I became obsessed with angels and ballerinas, > things of grace and beauty, otherworldly." > Charlottesville, VA 22903 --C. Love And why should the investing public pay for fundamental research that will not have any payback to them in the forseeable future, if ever? IBM used to spend a lot of money at Watson Research on stuff like the evolution of stars and why Anti Missle Defense was a bad idea. They never made a penny off it. They might as well have taken the bushels of money out in the parking lot and burned it for all the good it did. For the public good you say? Where was the public in 92 when the shit hit the fan? del cecchi Path: news.columbia.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!btnet-peer!btnet!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!arkane.demon.co.uk!whos-awake-out-there!bofh.dot!arkane-co-astarial!arkane-net-esther!not-for-mail From: Alistair J. R. Young Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 22 Nov 1998 10:26:22 +0000 Organization: Arkane Systems Ltd. Sender: avatar-usenet@esther.arkane.net Message-ID: References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: arkane.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: arkane.demon.co.uk:158.152.145.208 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 911736469 nnrp-10:22115 NO-IDENT arkane.demon.co.uk:158.152.145.208 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.95) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Disclaimer: The opinions below ARE my company's, because I OWN it! ŠX-PGP-1: id=0x6A7AB399; fprnt=5C 27 43 25 6B 32 4D 6E E7 69 EC 7B 77 46 13 92 X-PGP-2: Mail pgpkey-avatar@arkane.demon.co.uk for my public key. X-License: For copyright and related information, please see: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/avatar/postcopy.html X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.4.56/Emacs 19.33 Lines: 26 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204317 comp.arch:78909 comp.unix.admin:88027 On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 19:35:36 -0600, in message <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net>, Del Cecchi (== dcecchi) praised Shub-Internet thus: > And why should the investing public pay for fundamental research that > will not have any payback to them in the forseeable future, if ever? Well, if we do enough of it, we might in the future learn to avoid the fundamental mistake of crediting the general public with a smidgeon of intelligence and/or the ability to look beyond short-term monetary profit as the be-all and end-all of existence. > IBM used to spend a lot of money at Watson Research on stuff like the > evolution of stars and why Anti Missle Defense was a bad idea. They > never made a penny off it. They might as well have taken the bushels > of money out in the parking lot and burned it for all the good it did. Alistair "what was that line about notarised original thoughts?" Y -- Computational Thaumaturge -- Sysimperator, dominus retis deusque machinarum. e-mail: avatar-sig@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/ Wanted: Kernel hacker to develop memory-management subsystem for new free non-Unixalike operating system. No cash, only credit and the end result offered. Email: if interested. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!jobone!dailyplanet.srl.ford.com!eccws1.dearborn.ford.com!longhorn!tph From: tph@longhorn.uucp (Tom Harrington) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Date: 23 Nov 1998 18:37:54 GMT Organization: Mechanist Industries Lines: 27 Message-ID: <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> Reply-To: tph@rmi.net NNTP-Posting-Host: cs0053.eld.ford.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204377 comp.arch:78944 comp.unix.admin:88048 Del Cecchi (dcecchi@ibm.net) wrote: : And why should the investing public pay for fundamental research that : will not have any payback to them in the forseeable future, if ever? Let me adapt the quote from Benjamin Franklin that James Adams quoted Šelsewhere in this thread: Why do we bother paying for elementary school? Think about it. There's no payoff for literaly years after the money is spent. And a good chunk of it is likely wasted on children who will never contribute significantly to society anyway. And those who do grow up and help to improve the world do so in unpredictable ways; there's no way of knowing what problems will be solved, or by who, when you're looking at the elementary school level. So, we could classify elementary school spending as going toward unpredictable, distant goals, and being spent in some unknown percentage on children who will never help anyway. Yet we continue to spend money educating small children. When you understand why we spend money on elementary schools, you may begin to understand why spending money on fundamental research is a good idea. -- Tom Harrington --------- tph@rmii.com -------- http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph "...one can get high scores on intelligence tests, but still be unable to think for one's self." -Revelation X: The "Bob" Apocryphon Cookie's Revenge: ftp://ftp.rmi.net/pub2/tph/cookie/cookies-revenge.sit.hqx Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.shore.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!news.nist.gov!not-for-mail From: Przemek Klosowski Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 23 Nov 1998 13:54:00 -0500 Organization: NIST Lines: 33 Message-ID: <54vhk6s0jb.fsf@rrdjazz.nist.gov> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: rrdjazz.nist.gov X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204376 Del Cecchi writes: > And why should the investing public pay for fundamental research that > will not have any payback to them in the forseeable future, if ever? > IBM used to spend a lot of money at Watson Research on stuff like the > evolution of stars and why Anti Missle Defense was a bad idea. They > never made a penny off it. They might as well have taken the bushels > of money out in the parking lot and burned it for all the good it did. No, because burning the bushels of money isn't an intellectual exercise and astrophysics is. You are pointing out that if one takes almost any particular fundamential science research, it is pointless and doesn't have payback. You then seem to conclude that all basic science is worthless. The fundamental thing about basic science is that it cannot be commoditized or managed. In the end, it has to be a single person that figures out something hard. Note that, strictly speaking, one could argue that everybody else wasted the money given to them. ŠWe are paying few hundred dollars each month for car insurance, and normally we hope to avoid claiming it back. I propose that funding science is like insurance, or speculative investment, or defense funding---one implicitly acknowledges that most of the money will be 'wasted'. -- przemek klosowski (301) 975-6249 NIST Center for Neutron Research (bldg. 235), E111 National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA .. and for spam extractors, FCC Commisioners' email is: wkennard@fcc.gov,sness@fcc.gov,pmisener@fcc.gov,mpowell@fcc.gov Path: news.columbia.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!ayres.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 23 Nov 1998 19:51:22 GMT Lines: 56 Message-ID: <73cebq$cfd$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-183.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: irk.zetnet.co.uk 911850682 12781 194.247.40.232 (23 Nov 1998 19:51:22 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Nov 1998 19:51:22 GMT X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204385 comp.arch:78950 comp.unix.admin:88050 On 1998-11-21 jadams@NO.SPAM.PLEASE(JamesW.Adams) said: :Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin :> :Dennis Ritchie made light of a serious :situation > :>You do know that Dennis Ritchie invented C, don't you? Oh good. :I am quite impressed with Mr. Ritchie's accomplishments, but science :doesn't accept arguments of authority for good reason. No, but the original flamer seemed to be concerned at all these "beta- and gamma-males" sitting around complacently. Given this, pointing out a position of alpha-level influence is entirely appropriate. I'm no supporter of hierarchy, but it phases me a little when people criticise others as know-nothing in the face of the evidence. :In my view, Ritchie is being absurdly complacent, even arrogant, :in proposing that all is well because he may be comfortable. Where did you get this from? All I got from DMR's post was a factual correction. Someone said "And now we've lost Bell Labs as well". If I were working at a place and someone asserted that it had met its demise, I would probably respond in much the same way. It doesn't say anything about what I think of the topic that was under discussion. :Lucent doesn't have anywhere near the funding or commitment that Š :its predecessors had in the 1950s and 1960s, and to claim otherwise :is absurd. Who was? It may not be as significant, but that's a far cry from "no longer functional". :The fact is that basic, fundamental research in America is in the :doldrums, and the ignorant, opportunistic attitudes of most top :managers (such as Bill Gates) will keep it there for the foreseeable :future unless people bring pressure to change those attitudes. Yes, that's a problem in Britain before, although in Britain the assumption tends to be that companies aren't going to do blue-skies research anyway, and the universities is where the real research occurs. Why is why it's alarming that universities over here are now finding themselves starved of cash by a government determined to reverse the principle of free education for all that has been the political invariant of a century, because they committed themselves to the spending figures of the outgoing government before that government had even set the figures, let alone left office. *ahem* However, where the lack of research fits in with the decision to privatise the internet naming authority in the US is a different issue entirely. As I understand it, the issue is whether or not you ccan afford to have something as important and central as that working in commercial conditions. -- Communa (lisard@zetnet.co.uk) -- you know soft spoken changes nothing Reply-To: "Dennis J. Minette" From: "Dennis J. Minette" References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:54:02 -0500 Lines: 45 Organization: Minette Data Systems, Inc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin NNTP-Posting-Host: 1Cust86.tnt1.sarasota.fl.da.uu.net [153.37.162.86] Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!spamkiller1.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.68.152.14!upnetnews04!upnetnews05 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204396 comp.arch:78955 comp.unix.admin:88056 James W. Adams wrote in message <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net>... >> :Dennis Ritchie made light of a serious situation >> >>You do know that Dennis Ritchie invented C, don't you? Oh good. > >I am quite impressed with Mr. Ritchie's accomplishments, but science >doesn't accept arguments of authority for good reason. > >Everybody makes mistakes sometimes. Einstein arguably did with the >Cosmological Constant, Pauling did with both vitamin C as well as >publishing a proposed structure for DNA which met all available Š>X-ray crystallographic requirements but wasn't an acid. > >In my view, Ritchie is being absurdly complacent, even arrogant, >in proposing that all is well because he may be comfortable. > >Nobel prizes are like "Man of the Year." They are awarded anyway, >and the fact that a bunch of Lucent employees may have won them >if anything indicates that there isn't as much competition as >there should be. > >Lucent doesn't have anywhere near the funding or commitment that >its predecessors had in the 1950s and 1960s, and to claim otherwise >is absurd. The very fact that it was spun off should serve as >evidence of that. > >The fact is that basic, fundamental research in America is in the >doldrums, and the ignorant, opportunistic attitudes of most top >managers (such as Bill Gates) will keep it there for the foreseeable >future unless people bring pressure to change those attitudes. And where should the people's pressure be directed? Toward influencing senior, executive management in _private_ industry or toward espousal of more _government_ funding? >-- >James W. Adams -- jamesa @ cstone.net <-- remove spaces > "I became obsessed with angels and ballerinas, > things of grace and beauty, otherworldly." >Charlottesville, VA 22903 --C. Love Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.ucsc.edu!usenet From: "Andre M Scroggie" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:30:31 -0800 Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Lines: 45 Message-ID: <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: billpc.cse.ucsc.edu X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204408 comp.arch:78962 comp.unix.admin:88059 James W. Adams wrote in message <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net>... >> :Dennis Ritchie made light of a serious situation >> >>You do know that Dennis Ritchie invented C, don't you? Oh good. > >I am quite impressed with Mr. Ritchie's accomplishments, but science >doesn't accept arguments of authority for good reason. > Š>Everybody makes mistakes sometimes. Einstein arguably did with the >Cosmological Constant, Pauling did with both vitamin C as well as >publishing a proposed structure for DNA which met all available >X-ray crystallographic requirements but wasn't an acid. > >In my view, Ritchie is being absurdly complacent, even arrogant, >in proposing that all is well because he may be comfortable. > >Nobel prizes are like "Man of the Year." They are awarded anyway, >and the fact that a bunch of Lucent employees may have won them >if anything indicates that there isn't as much competition as >there should be. > >Lucent doesn't have anywhere near the funding or commitment that >its predecessors had in the 1950s and 1960s, and to claim otherwise >is absurd. The very fact that it was spun off should serve as >evidence of that. > >The fact is that basic, fundamental research in America is in the >doldrums, and the ignorant, opportunistic attitudes of most top >managers (such as Bill Gates) will keep it there for the foreseeable >future unless people bring pressure to change those attitudes. > > >-- >James W. Adams -- jamesa @ cstone.net <-- remove spaces > "I became obsessed with angels and ballerinas, > things of grace and beauty, otherworldly." >Charlottesville, VA 22903 --C. Love Not necessarily a Bill Gates supporter... but Microsoft does spend BILLIONS of dollars on research a year (not much to show for it yet.) Andre Message-ID: <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:55:10 -0600 From: Del Cecchi Reply-To: dcecchi@ibm.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.32.84 X-Trace: 24 Nov 1998 02:50:35 GMT, 32.100.32.84 Organization: IBM.NET Lines: 14 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net ŠPath: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news3.ibm.net!32.100.32.84 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204412 comp.arch:78963 comp.unix.admin:88060 Andre M Scroggie wrote: > snip > Not necessarily a Bill Gates supporter... but Microsoft does spend BILLIONS > of dollars on research a year (not much to show for it yet.) > > Andre Basic research? I don't believe a word of it. Please explain to me where they are spending these billions. And writing NT5, corrupting JAVA, or adding features to office 2001 doesn't count. That is development, not research. del cecchi Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!news.ox.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: "Thomas Womack" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:38:54 -0000 Organization: Oxford University, England Lines: 14 Message-ID: <73drbr$bga$1@news.ox.ac.uk> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: mc64.merton.ox.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.ox.ac.uk 911896763 11786 163.1.144.64 (24 Nov 1998 08:39:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@ox.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Nov 1998 08:39:23 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204428 comp.arch:78973 comp.unix.admin:88067 Andre M Scroggie wrote in message <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu>... >Not necessarily a Bill Gates supporter... but Microsoft does spend BILLIONS >of dollars on research a year (not much to show for it yet.) I'd rather doubt billions, unless you count all their programming efforts as basic research. On the other hand, there's certainly millions being spent on the work at research.microsoft.com - the list of publications there looks comparable, both in type and in number, to a decent university CompSci department. Tom Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.ecrc.net!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!cambridge.arm.com!news From: michael.williams@arm-sponge.com (Michael Williams) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin ŠSubject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 24 Nov 1998 08:41:38 GMT Organization: ARM Ltd Lines: 49 Message-ID: <73drg2$nuf@sis.cambridge.arm.com> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> Reply-To: michael.williams@arm-sponge.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.168.5.139 X-Address: 48-49 Bateman Street, Cambridge, CB2 1LR, UK X-Disclaimer: This posting does not express the views of ARM, unless explicitly stated. X-Note: Remove the word "sponge" from my email address before replying Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204429 comp.arch:78974 comp.unix.admin:88069 In article , Ketil Z Malde wrote: >They are founding some stuff at Cambridge (England, not Massachussets, >unless I am mistaken), and I think in Australia. http://www.research.microsoft.com lists Redmond, San Francisco, Beijing and Cambridge (England). To save you the trip, the areas of research listed are: Advanced Interactivity and Intelligence: - Decision Theory and Adaptive Systems - Natural Language Processing - Speech Technology - Telepresence - User Interfaces - Virtual Worlds - Vision Technology Mathematical Sciences - Cryptography - Signal Processing - Theory Systems and Architecture - Database - Graphics - Scalable Servers - Systems and Networking Programming Tools, Methodologies and Techniques - Advanced Development Tools - Advanced Programming Languages - Component Applications - Intentional Programming - Programming Language Systems - Semantics Based Tools > I actually found some interesting papers on functional programming or > some such at one time (how's that for being vague?). ŠIt's odd that you mention functional programming, because the team list of the Cambridge office includes Luca Cardelli, whose name I remember from the papers on ML I had at University. (And it also seems he worked on Modula-3, another thing I remember from University, though not as fondly.) Mike. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newscore.univie.ac.at!aconews.univie.ac.at!news.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail From: jthorn@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at (Jonathan Thornburg) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 24 Nov 1998 10:23:38 +0100 Organization: Universität Wien / Institut für Theoretische Physik Lines: 30 Message-ID: <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: galileo.thp.univie.ac.at X-Trace: www.univie.ac.at 911899423 63746 131.130.87.67 (24 Nov 1998 09:23:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-adm@news.univie.ac.at NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Nov 1998 09:23:43 GMT Summary: electricity was "pure research" in 1820 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204431 comp.arch:78975 comp.unix.admin:88071 In article <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>, Tom Harrington wrote [on why it's worthwhile to have public support of pure research] | Let me adapt the quote from Benjamin Franklin that James Adams quoted | elsewhere in this thread: Why do we bother paying for elementary school? | Think about it. There's no payoff for literaly years after the money | is spent. And a good chunk of it is likely wasted on children who will | never contribute significantly to society anyway. And those who do grow | up and help to improve the world do so in unpredictable ways; there's no | way of knowing what problems will be solved, or by who, when you're looking | at the elementary school level. So, we could classify elementary school | spending as going toward unpredictable, distant goals, and being spent | in some unknown percentage on children who will never help anyway. Yet we | continue to spend money educating small children. | | When you understand why we spend money on elementary schools, you may | begin to understand why spending money on fundamental research is a | good idea. Very well said! A further relevant data point: "Electricity and magnetism" (a.k.a. "voltaic cells, lodestones, et al") were pure research in 1820. -- -- Jonathan Thornburg Universität Wien / Institut für Theoretische Physik "If you are either rich or a camel, you should, as a purely practical calculation, enjoy life now [rather than in the hereafter]." -- John Kenneth Galbraith Sender: kma@ketilboks.networks.nera.no Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin ŠSubject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> From: Ketil Z Malde Mail-Copies-To: never Date: 24 Nov 1998 10:26:28 +0100 Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.204.181.130 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.204.181.130 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.telia.no!d2o204.telia.com!195.204.181.130 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204427 comp.arch:78972 comp.unix.admin:88066 Del Cecchi writes: > Basic research? I don't believe a word of it. Please explain to me > where they are spending these billions. And writing NT5, corrupting > JAVA, or adding features to office 2001 doesn't count. That is > development, not research. Oh dear, you don't count Hungarian notation either, I take it? They are founding some stuff at Cambridge (England, not Massachussets, unless I am mistaken), and I think in Australia. I actually found some interesting papers on functional programming or some such at one time (how's that for being vague?). Whether that's really basic, or whether it constitutes billions of anything is another matter, of course. ~kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-xfer.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.uwa.edu.au!not-for-mail From: Paul Repacholi Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 24 Nov 1998 18:40:54 +0800 Organization: The University of Western Australia Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.44/Emacs 20.2 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204432 comp.arch:78977 comp.unix.admin:88072 jthorn@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at (Jonathan Thornburg) writes: > In article <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>, > Tom Harrington wrote > | When you understand why we spend money on elementary schools, you may > | begin to understand why spending money on fundamental research is a > | good idea. > > Very well said! Š> > A further relevant data point: "Electricity and magnetism" > (a.k.a. "voltaic cells, lodestones, et al") were pure research in 1820. PLus, repeated studies have shown an average X35 fold return in `worthless' research. ~paul Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news-xfer.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!newsin.iconnet.net!IConNet!not-for-mail Sender: fcusack@ratbert.iconnet.net Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> From: Frank Cusack Message-ID: <3vg1b9w279.fsf@ratbert.iconnet.net> Lines: 28 X-Newsreader: Quassia Gnus v0.37/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:15:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ratbert.iconnet.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 10:15:52 EDT Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204445 comp.arch:78984 comp.unix.admin:88082 I'm no M$ supporter (the opposite, actually) but just b/c you don't know about their research doesn't mean they aren't doing it. "I don't believe it" is not a substantial argument. M$ does spend lots of money on research, on non-products. ~frank Del Cecchi writes: > Andre M Scroggie wrote: > > > snip > > Not necessarily a Bill Gates supporter... but Microsoft does spend BILLIONS > > of dollars on research a year (not much to show for it yet.) > > > > Andre > > Basic research? I don't believe a word of it. Please explain to me > where they are spending these billions. And writing NT5, corrupting > JAVA, or adding features to office 2001 doesn't count. That is > development, not research. > > del cecchi -- Frank Cusack ** Icon CMT Corp. ** PGP: C001AA75 "One World. One Web. One Program." -Microsoft promotional advertisement "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!" -Adolf Hitler Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!news From: Andy Glew Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 11:19:31 -0600 ŠOrganization: U Wisc CS (& Intel) Lines: 32 Message-ID: <365AEAA3.89A7B74@cs.wisc.edu> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <3vg1b9w279.fsf@ratbert.iconnet.net> <73ejv9$8le$1@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: helga.cs.wisc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204456 comp.arch:78992 comp.unix.admin:88094 > The original note claimed that "billions" were being spent on research > by Microsoft. This means Microsoft is spending around 12% or more of gross > revenue annually on basic research. It would also mean they are spending a > lot more, in absolute terms, on research than, e.g., IBM TJ Watson Research > is spending in total. And IBM Research has at least an order of magnitude > more employees. From Microsoft's annual report, http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar98/income.htm Income Statements In millions, except earnings per share Year Ended June 30 1998 Revenue $14,484 Operating expenses: Research and development $2,502 From IBM's annual report, http://www.ibm.com/AnnualReport/1997/ares.multi Revenue $78,508 Research, development, and engineering: $4,877 Expenditures of $4,307 million in 1997, $3,934 million in 1996 and $3,387 million in 1995 were made for research and development activities covering basic scientific research and the application of scientific advances to the development of new and improved products and their uses. Of these amounts, software-related activities were $2,016 million, $1,726 million and $1,157 million in 1997, 1996 and 1995, respectively. Therefore, both companies are spending billions in whatever passes for R&D on a balance sheet. Unfortunately, I cannot see how much of this is "basic" R&D. But I suspect that a comparable fraction of both companies' resources is. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.enteract.com!cyclone.i1.net!uunet!in5.uu.net!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!news From: Dennis Ritchie Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:45:23 +0000 Organization: Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies Lines: 27 Message-ID: <365AF0B3.740616A6@bell-labs.com> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <3vg1b9w279.fsf@ratbert.iconnet.net> <73ejv9$8le$1@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: centaur.cs.bell-labs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 ŠContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (WinNT; U) Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204471 comp.arch:79005 comp.unix.admin:88102 Rich Rashid was around a couple of weeks ago, and said that there were 300+ employees in MS research. There are roughly 1200 employees in Bell Labs research, split approximately equally between physical and information sciences. The company is committed to spending 1% of revenues ($7.2B last reported quarter) on the activity. We are actively hiring. (Some 300 went to AT&T labs in the trivestiture.) There has been a realignment in the research and the scope and some of the overlaps, especially in physical sciences, have been somewhat reduced. This happened mostly before trivestiture. Generally people are extremely happy with the trivestiture, though it was traumatic in some ways at the time. Likewise it is evident that the separation from AT&T was an extremely good move. I won't dispute a general argument that the "average" research here is somewhat less fundamental than in the past nor that the emphasis has shifted somewhat away from physics and toward software, but the population count and the budget have been remarkably stable. Dennis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.new-york.net!news.decus.org!eisner!kilgallen From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam Lines: 12 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: <1998Nov24.132310.1@eisner> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <3vg1b9w279.fsf@ratbert.iconnet.net> <73ejv9$8le$1@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> <365AEAA3.89A7B74@cs.wisc.edu> X-Trace: news.decus.org 911931795 10062 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2] X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:23:10 GMT Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204468 comp.arch:78999 comp.unix.admin:88100 In article <365AEAA3.89A7B74@cs.wisc.edu>, Andy Glew writes: > Therefore, both companies are spending billions in whatever passes for R&D > on a balance sheet. Unfortunately, I cannot see how much of this is "basic" R&D. I believe that Zero of the "D" portion of R&D qualifies as "basic". I do not believe there is such a thing as "basic development", only "basic research". R&D surely includes whatever it takes to bring out the next version of each operating system, but neither the "R" portion Šnor the "D" portion of that would be "basic". Larry Kilgallen Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!rockyd.rockefeller.edu!not-for-mail From: alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu (Alexandre Pechtchanski) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Organization: Rockefeller University Hospital (GCRC), New York Message-ID: <365bf96b.74602847@Rockyd> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <73drbr$bga$1@news.ox.ac.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 19 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:24:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.85.24.56 X-Trace: rockyd.rockefeller.edu 911931876 129.85.24.56 (Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:24:36 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:24:36 EDT Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204465 On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:38:54 -0000, "Thomas Womack" wrote: >Andre M Scroggie wrote in message <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu>... > >>Not necessarily a Bill Gates supporter... but Microsoft does spend >>BILLIONS of dollars on research a year (not much to show for it yet.) > >I'd rather doubt billions, unless you count all their programming >efforts as basic research. On the other hand, there's certainly millions >being spent on the work at research.microsoft.com - the list of >publications there looks comparable, both in type and in number, to a >decent university CompSci department. It looks (from the "quality" of resulting products) that their "research" is on par with buying patents - not to implement, but to prevent implementation. [ When replying, remove *'s from address ] Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!nntprelay.mathworks.com!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:16:45 +0000 Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <3vg1b9w279.fsf@ratbert.iconnet.net> <73ejv9$8le$1@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> <365AF0B3.740616A6@bell-labs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-099.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: roch.zetnet.co.uk 912021330 8559 194.247.41.123 (25 Nov 1998 19:15:30 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Nov 1998 19:15:30 GMT User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980226 (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.35 (i586)) Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204574 comp.arch:79061 comp.unix.admin:88167 Dennis Ritchie wrote: Š> Rich Rashid was around a couple of weeks ago, and > said that there were 300+ employees in MS research. One of the best quotes I saw recently, when MS were setting up their new research centre in Cambridge, was that "they wouldn't be poaching first-class brains". Further comment is superfluous. pete -- Pete Fenelon, 3 Beckside Gardens, York, YO10 3TX, UK (pete.fenelon@zetnet.co.uk) ``there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas'' Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> Organization: Plethora . Net - more net, less spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test69 (20 September 1998) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 16 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:22:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.166.146.8 X-Trace: ptah.visi.com 911938936 205.166.146.8 (Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:22:16 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 14:22:16 CDT Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204475 comp.arch:79009 comp.unix.admin:88106 In article , Ketil Z Malde wrote: >Oh dear, you don't count Hungarian notation either, I take it? I once saw a reference to an article by the inventor of HN, explaining how the Microsoft "HN" violates every single one of the principles of the Hungarian Notation as originally described. I'd love to see that again. -s -- Copyright 1998, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please. Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! Date: 24 Nov 98 13:35:18 -0800 From: "Charlie Gibbs" Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> Message-ID: <586.632T900T8154009@sky.bus.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 17 X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.skybus.com X-Trace: 24 Nov 1998 14:50:02 -0800, news.skybus.com Path: news.columbia.edu!news.new-york.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news-pen-3.sprintlink.net!news-in-east1.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.westel.com!news.skybus.com!204.244.247.117 ŠXref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204501 In article ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil Z Malde) writes: >Del Cecchi writes: > >> Basic research? I don't believe a word of it. Please explain to me >> where they are spending these billions. And writing NT5, corrupting >> JAVA, or adding features to office 2001 doesn't count. That is >> development, not research. > >Oh dear, you don't count Hungarian notation either, I take it? Oh, I count it. I just don't use it. :-) -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!forum.apple.com!news.apple.com!handma3.apple.com!user From: handleym@ricochet.net (Maynard Handley) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:37:48 -0800 Organization: Me and no-one else Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <73drg2$nuf@sis.cambridge.arm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: handma3.apple.com X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.3.1 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204502 comp.arch:79018 comp.unix.admin:88116 In article <73drg2$nuf@sis.cambridge.arm.com>, michael.williams@arm-sponge.com wrote: > In article , > Ketil Z Malde wrote: > >They are founding some stuff at Cambridge (England, not Massachussets, > >unless I am mistaken), and I think in Australia. > > http://www.research.microsoft.com lists Redmond, San Francisco, > Beijing and Cambridge (England). > > To save you the trip, the areas of research listed are: > > > Advanced Interactivity and Intelligence: > - Decision Theory and Adaptive Systems > - Natural Language Processing > - Speech Technology > - Telepresence > - User Interfaces > - Virtual Worlds > - Vision Technology Š> > Mathematical Sciences > - Cryptography > - Signal Processing > - Theory > > Systems and Architecture > - Database > - Graphics > - Scalable Servers > - Systems and Networking > > Programming Tools, Methodologies and Techniques > - Advanced Development Tools > - Advanced Programming Languages > - Component Applications > - Intentional Programming > - Programming Language Systems > - Semantics Based Tools > > > I actually found some interesting papers on functional programming or > > some such at one time (how's that for being vague?). > > It's odd that you mention functional programming, because the team > list of the Cambridge office includes Luca Cardelli, whose name I > remember from the papers on ML I had at University. (And it also seems > he worked on Modula-3, another thing I remember from University, > though not as fondly.) Without this turning into an MS bash-fest here, I think the reason a number of people are skeptical about the usefulness of MS research is based on MS history. For example a casual use of NT 4.0 for a few days leads one to believe that extremely primitive page replacement algorithms are being used. What's needed there is reading an OS textbook from the 60's, not new research. The use of Dev Studio for a few days (not to mention the apparent rejection yesterday of Java) leads one to believe that usability of Dev Tools is not a high MS priority. The major UI innovation going from Win 95 to 98, the IE desktop integration, appears to be something that no user asked for, but which is there purely as a way to bring the advertising revenue model of TV to the desktop. Sure there are a bunch of neato buzzwords in the list above, but do we have any reason to believe that MS will ever implement anything useful that's discovered? Maynard -- My opinion only Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!209.44.33.119!hub1.ispnews.com!news6.ispnews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David O'Bedlam Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <72ie6m$pm5@jamesa.cstone.net> <72tecr$t1d$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <72ve6c$52n@jamesa.cstone.net> <3654BBB8.D3352A2C@plano.net> ŠOrganization: Gehenna-By-The-Sea Lines: 14 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.201.34.8 X-Trace: news6.ispnews.com 911959839 207.201.34.8 (Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:10:39 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:10:39 EDT Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 02:10:39 GMT Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204510 Charles Richmond wrote: > destroying the future for everyone all around the world! So how long have we all been dead? Smelling, David -- "I can't gracefully accept the universe. But I've found I that I *can* gracefully accept the fact that the universe should not exist." -- Satanas Uxora, on alt.angst Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!hub1.ispnews.com!news6.ispnews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David O'Bedlam Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <7357v6$uiv$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> <54vhk6s0jb.fsf@rrdjazz.nist.gov> Organization: Gehenna-By-The-Sea Lines: 14 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.201.34.8 X-Trace: news6.ispnews.com 911960302 207.201.34.8 (Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:18:22 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:18:22 EDT Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 02:18:22 GMT Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204511 "Unprofitable" research means facts for someone to connect usefully later. Axiomatically, TheDavid -- "I can't gracefully accept the universe. But I've found I that I *can* gracefully accept the fact that the universe should not exist." -- Satanas Uxora, on alt.angst Message-ID: <365B8038.E86@ibm.net> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:57:44 -0600 From: Del Cecchi Reply-To: dcecchi@ibm.net ŠX-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <3vg1b9w279.fsf@ratbert.iconnet.net> <73ejv9$8le$1@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> <365AEAA3.89A7B74@cs.wisc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.32.193 X-Trace: 25 Nov 1998 03:53:03 GMT, 32.100.32.193 Organization: IBM.NET Lines: 45 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news3.ibm.net!32.100.32.193 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204519 comp.arch:79026 comp.unix.admin:88131 Andy Glew wrote: > > > The original note claimed that "billions" were being spent on research > > by Microsoft. This means Microsoft is spending around 12% or more of gross > > revenue annually on basic research. It would also mean they are spending a > > lot more, in absolute terms, on research than, e.g., IBM TJ Watson Research > > is spending in total. And IBM Research has at least an order of magnitude > > more employees. > > From Microsoft's annual report, http://www.microsoft.com/msft/ar98/income.htm > > Income Statements > In millions, except earnings per share > Year Ended June 30 1998 > Revenue $14,484 > Operating expenses: > Research and development $2,502 > > From IBM's annual report, http://www.ibm.com/AnnualReport/1997/ares.multi > Revenue $78,508 > Research, development, and engineering: $4,877 > > Expenditures of $4,307 million in 1997, $3,934 million in 1996 > and $3,387 million in 1995 were made for research and > development activities covering basic scientific research and > the application of scientific advances to the development of new > and improved products and their uses. Of these amounts, > software-related activities were $2,016 million, $1,726 million > and $1,157 million in 1997, 1996 and 1995, respectively. > > Therefore, both companies are spending billions in whatever passes for R&D > on a balance sheet. Unfortunately, I cannot see how much of this is "basic" R&D. > But I suspect that a comparable fraction of both companies' resources is. Why would you suspect that? Up until recently MS basic research was zero, null, nada. That is why they made such a big deal not long ago that they were actually setting up research labs in places like Cambridge UK. Š And people jumped me for saying I doubted MS was "spending Billions on Research". Sheesh. Show me the papers from MS authors in Refereed Journals, or reputable conferences dealing with basic research. del cecchi. Message-ID: <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:00:15 -0600 From: Del Cecchi Reply-To: dcecchi@ibm.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.32.193 X-Trace: 25 Nov 1998 03:55:36 GMT, 32.100.32.193 Organization: IBM.NET Lines: 15 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net Path: news.columbia.edu!news.new-york.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news3.ibm.net!32.100.32.193 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204531 comp.arch:79035 comp.unix.admin:88143 Paul Repacholi wrote: > > > > PLus, repeated studies have shown an average X35 fold return > in `worthless' research. > > ~paul Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the transistor, Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that matter? And what did the loverly ATT stockholders make out of the deal? del cecchi Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!news From: Chris Morgan Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 24 Nov 1998 23:29:04 -0500 Organization: Linux Hackers Unlimited Lines: 16 Sender: cm@mihalis.ix.netcom.com Message-ID: <87n25g75v3.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <3vg1b9w279.fsf@ratbert.iconnet.net> <73ejv9$8le$1@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> <365AEAA3.89A7B74@cs.wisc.edu> <365B8038.E86@ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: nyc-ny68-58.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Nov 24 8:24:41 PM PST 1998 ŠX-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204523 comp.arch:79030 comp.unix.admin:88135 Del Cecchi writes: > Show me the papers from MS authors in Refereed Journals, or reputable > conferences dealing with basic research. That refereed journal stuff is just another dumb idea like free software. Microsoft will soon embrace and extend that too. What's the point of doing all that research and then letting other people know what you're up to, I just don't get it. Chris -emoticon annotated version available on request -- Chris Morgan Home Web Server - http://mihalis.dyn.ml.org/index.html email me for numeric URL if ml.org is down From: "Frank A. Adrian" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <73drg2$nuf@sis.cambridge.arm.com> Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:59:19 -0800 Lines: 56 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.180.170.68 Message-ID: <365b8ffb.0@news2.uswest.net> X-Trace: 24 Nov 1998 23:04:59 +0600, 209.180.170.68 X-Report: Report abuse to abuse@uswest.net. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.uswest.net!news1.uswest.net!209.180.170.68 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204528 comp.arch:79031 comp.unix.admin:88139 Essentially, Bill's done a good job of raiding DEC's Western Research Lab (which did a good job of raiding Xerox PARC and HP Labs :-). That's how he ended up with Luca Cardelli and Butler Lampson. Michael Williams wrote in message +ADw-73drg2+ACQ-nuf+AEA-sis.cambridge.arm.com+AD4-... +AD4-In article +ADw-KETIL-861zmtfnln.fsf+AEA-ketilboks.networks.nera.no+AD4-, +AD4-Ketil Z Malde +ADw-ketil+AEA-ii.uib.no+AD4- wrote: +AD4APg-They are founding some stuff at Cambridge (England, not Massachussets, +AD4APg-unless I am mistaken), and I think in Australia. +AD4- +AD4-http://www.research.microsoft.com lists Redmond, San Francisco, +AD4-Beijing and Cambridge (England). +AD4- +AD4-To save you the trip, the areas of research listed are: +AD4- +AD4- +AD4-Advanced Interactivity and Intelligence: +AD4- - Decision Theory and Adaptive Systems +AD4- - Natural Language Processing +AD4- - Speech Technology +AD4- - Telepresence Š+AD4- - User Interfaces +AD4- - Virtual Worlds +AD4- - Vision Technology +AD4- +AD4-Mathematical Sciences +AD4- - Cryptography +AD4- - Signal Processing +AD4- - Theory +AD4- +AD4-Systems and Architecture +AD4- - Database +AD4- - Graphics +AD4- - Scalable Servers +AD4- - Systems and Networking +AD4- +AD4-Programming Tools, Methodologies and Techniques +AD4- - Advanced Development Tools +AD4- - Advanced Programming Languages +AD4- - Component Applications +AD4- - Intentional Programming +AD4- - Programming Language Systems +AD4- - Semantics Based Tools +AD4- +AD4APg- I actually found some interesting papers on functional programming or +AD4APg- some such at one time (how's that for being vague?). +AD4- +AD4-It's odd that you mention functional programming, because the team +AD4-list of the Cambridge office includes Luca Cardelli, whose name I +AD4-remember from the papers on ML I had at University. (And it also seems +AD4-he worked on Modula-3, another thing I remember from University, +AD4-though not as fondly.) +AD4- +AD4-Mike. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!news-in-east1.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net> Organization: Plethora . Net - more net, less spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test69 (20 September 1998) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 17 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 05:20:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.166.146.8 X-Trace: ptah.visi.com 911971252 205.166.146.8 (Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:20:52 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:20:52 CDT Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204529 comp.arch:79034 comp.unix.admin:88141 In article <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net>, Del Cecchi wrote: >Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the transistor, >Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that matter? > >And what did the loverly ATT stockholders make out of the deal? Š Perhaps quite a bit. Massive economic development tends to help everyone in cases like that. I would bet that the benefits over time to AT&T from the development of the transistor far outweigh the research costs. So what if Intel gets some too? -s -- Copyright 1998, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please. Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! Reply-To: "Dennis J. Minette" From: "Dennis J. Minette" References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:24:53 -0500 Lines: 41 Organization: Minette Data Systems, Inc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin NNTP-Posting-Host: 1Cust155.tnt1.sarasota.fl.da.uu.net [153.37.162.155] Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.68.152.14!upnetnews04!upnetnews05 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204588 comp.arch:79067 comp.unix.admin:88184 Jonathan Thornburg wrote in message <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at>... >In article <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>, >Tom Harrington wrote >[on why it's worthwhile to have public support of pure research] >| Let me adapt the quote from Benjamin Franklin that James Adams quoted >| elsewhere in this thread: Why do we bother paying for elementary school? >| Think about it. There's no payoff for literaly years after the money >| is spent. And a good chunk of it is likely wasted on children who will >| never contribute significantly to society anyway. And those who do grow >| up and help to improve the world do so in unpredictable ways; there's no >| way of knowing what problems will be solved, or by who, when you're looking >| at the elementary school level. So, we could classify elementary school >| spending as going toward unpredictable, distant goals, and being spent >| in some unknown percentage on children who will never help anyway. Yet we >| continue to spend money educating small children. >| >| When you understand why we spend money on elementary schools, you may >| begin to understand why spending money on fundamental research is a >| good idea. > >Very well said! > >A further relevant data point: "Electricity and magnetism" >(a.k.a. "voltaic cells, lodestones, et al") were pure research in 1820. Š Wasn't some portion of such research rooted in the notion that this might in some way lead to a way to transform base metals in gold? >-- >-- Jonathan Thornburg > Universität Wien / Institut für Theoretische Physik > "If you are either rich or a camel, you should, as a purely practical > calculation, enjoy life now [rather than in the hereafter]." > -- John Kenneth Galbraith Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!nntprelay.mathworks.com!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!wildcard.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: mcr@wildcard.butterfly.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Followup-To: comp.arch Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:16:23 -0000 Organization: Wildcard Killer Butterfly Breeding Ground Message-ID: References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <73drg2$nuf@sis.cambridge.arm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: wildcard.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: wildcard.demon.co.uk:158.152.30.20 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 911992532 nnrp-04:29843 NO-IDENT wildcard.demon.co.uk:158.152.30.20 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10.957 X-Nerdware: http://www.nerdware.org X-Homepage: http://www.nerdware.org/mcr X-Quote: You can never browse enough Lines: 28 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204545 comp.arch:79044 comp.unix.admin:88151 In article , handleym@ricochet.net says... > Sure there are a bunch of neato buzzwords in the list above, but do we > have any reason to believe that MS will ever implement anything useful > that's discovered? A case of the left and right hands not working together? Possibly. We might be seeing another Xerox Parc. As long as they publish papers that we can all read, it's still basic research. 30 years[*] from now we may not care who paid for it, as we could be too busy exploiting it. The real question is, as always, about money. A good answer to that is "Follow the money." This may be why Andy Grove has claimed that Intel is bigger than the entertainment industry! Hmm. Define it, Andy, so we can count it. Then we might compare figures. Did I hear correctly that Bill Gates makes $30M (or more) a day? If he'd wanted to do something for basic research, perhaps he could've saved CCC in 1995 by buying a Cray-4? He could've probably bought the company, too. Alas, nobody did this. Does MS not have a 100 year business plan? Tsk. Š[*] I'm thinking of a certain X-Y pointing device. Thanks, Doug. ;) Followups set to comp.arch. -- Remove insect from address to email me | You can never browse enough will write code that writes code that writes code for food Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!not-for-mail From: jstott+usenet@poly.phys.cwru.edu (Jonathan Stott) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 25 Nov 1998 15:26:14 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University Lines: 21 Message-ID: <73h7im$60s$1@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net> Reply-To: jstott+usenet@poly.phys.cwru.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: poly.phys.cwru.edu X-No-Archive: yes X-Notice: Commercial mail is NOT welcome here. X-Get-A-Newsreader: Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204555 comp.arch:79052 comp.unix.admin:88158 In article <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net>, Del Cecchi wrote: >Paul Repacholi wrote: >> >> PLus, repeated studies have shown an average X35 fold return >> in `worthless' research. > >Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the transistor, >Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that matter? > >And what did the loverly ATT stockholders make out of the deal? Probably quite a bit. The transistor revolutionized almost every piece of hardware manufactured by AT&T (telephone switches, etc.) I would expect that patent royalties came to a fair bit of cash as well. -JS -- Jonathan Stott xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx icbm://41.30.14N/81.36.36W/ jstott@poly.phys.cwru.edu jjs17@po.cwru.edu Physicist for hire - http://poly.phys.cwru.edu/~jstott/resume.html Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!128.174.5.49!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!NewsNG.Chicago.Qual.Net!news.altair.com!uwvax!news From: Andy Glew Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:19:48 -0600 Organization: U Wisc CS (& Intel) Lines: 20 Message-ID: <365C3C34.45F9C9B0@cs.wisc.edu> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: helga.cs.wisc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ŠContent-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204568 comp.arch:79059 comp.unix.admin:88165 > Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the transistor, > Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that matter? One might reasonably point out that the transistor itself is not worth very much. The real invention that opened up the floodgates of our modern age was integrated circuits --- and more important than this, was the use of 2D planar lithography based manufacturing methods, that permitted mass manufacture. I can never quite remember the name of the inventor of the 2D process - something like Jan Hoechli, a Swiss, working for Fairchild? IMHO this manufacturing invention was more important than the transistor itself. Of course, it depends on the transistor as well. But, as has been pointed out here before, Bell Labs's transistor was not the first. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!news From: Andy Glew Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:03:51 -0600 Organization: U Wisc CS (& Intel) Lines: 12 Message-ID: <365C4687.EFABEB85@cs.wisc.edu> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: helga.cs.wisc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204595 comp.arch:79068 comp.unix.admin:88187 > Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the transistor, > Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that matter? Umm.... if I have my dates correct, Intel wasn't even founded (1968) until the AT&T patent on the bipolar transistor (1948) had expired. Not to mention, of course, that Intel didn't use AT&T's bipolar transistors much, but quickly became a MOS transistor house. And the MOS transistor was invented by Lilienfeld in 1925. Path: news.columbia.edu!newsfeed.nyu.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.shore.net!uunet!in5.uu.net!news.lsil.com!not-for-mail ŠFrom: demko.no.spam@lsil.com (Steve Demko - 4398) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 25 Nov 1998 19:00:40 GMT Organization: LSI Logic, Milpitas CA Lines: 27 Message-ID: <73hk4o$2ee$1@news.lsil.com> References: <365C3C34.45F9C9B0@cs.wisc.edu> Reply-To: demko@lsil.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 147.145.53.54 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204578 comp.arch:79062 comp.unix.admin:88168 In article <365C3C34.45F9C9B0@cs.wisc.edu>, Andy Glew writes: >> Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the transistor, >> Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that matter? > >One might reasonably point out that the transistor itself >is not worth very much. The real invention that opened >up the floodgates of our modern age was integrated >circuits --- and more important than this, was the use >of 2D planar lithography based manufacturing methods, >that permitted mass manufacture. > >I can never quite remember the name of the inventor of >the 2D process - something like Jan Hoechli, a Swiss, >working for Fairchild? > >IMHO this manufacturing invention was more important >than the transistor itself. Of course, it depends on the >transistor as well. But, as has been pointed out here >before, Bell Labs's transistor was not the first. > > If memory serves, Jack Kilby at TI and Gordon Moore at Fairchild had to split the patent for the integrated circuit based on the planar process. As to whether the patent covered the process itself, I don't know. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!192.220.250.21!netnews1.nw.verio.net!netnews.nwnet.net!nnrp2.ni.net!not-for-mail From: bhahn@spam-spam.go-away.com (Brendan Hahn) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Message-ID: References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <73drg2$nuf@sis.cambridge.arm.com> Organization: Transoft Corp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Reply-To: bhahn@transoft.mangle.net (unmangle address to reply) X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.4.0 Lines: 15 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 02:02:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.180.87.35 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 18:02:52 PDT ŠXref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204611 comp.arch:79069 comp.unix.admin:88194 handleym@ricochet.net (Maynard Handley) wrote: >Without this turning into an MS bash-fest here, I think the reason a >number of people are skeptical about the usefulness of MS research is >based on MS history. For example a casual use of NT 4.0 for a few days >leads one to believe that extremely primitive page replacement algorithms >are being used. FIFO, isn't it? Showing those VMS roots. >What's needed there is reading an OS textbook from the >60's, not new research. Well...70s. bhahn@transoft.mangle.net <-- unmangle to reply Message-ID: <365CC5D6.101@ibm.net> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 21:07:02 -0600 From: Del Cecchi Reply-To: dcecchi@ibm.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.32.53 X-Trace: 26 Nov 1998 03:02:18 GMT, 32.100.32.53 Organization: IBM.NET Lines: 26 X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news3.ibm.net!32.100.32.53 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204613 comp.arch:79072 comp.unix.admin:88199 Peter Seebach wrote: > > In article <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net>, Del Cecchi wrote: > >Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the transistor, > >Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that matter? > > > >And what did the loverly ATT stockholders make out of the deal? > > Perhaps quite a bit. Massive economic development tends to help everyone > in cases like that. I would bet that the benefits over time to AT&T from > the development of the transistor far outweigh the research costs. So what > if Intel gets some too? > > -s > -- > Copyright 1998, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net > C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Š> Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please. > Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! Nah, ATT would have made just as much money if IBM or someone at MIT happened to invent the transistor. Actually since they were regulated during the period in question it was sort of like doing it with tax dollars. del cecchi Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing From: ian@five-d.com (Ian Kemmish) Organization: At home with Ian X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.5 References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <73d24s$nb9@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <365A200E.7D73@ibm.net> <3vg1b9w279.fsf@ratbert.iconnet.net> <73ejv9$8le$1@mdnews.btv.ibm.com> <365AF0B3.740616A6@bell-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.112.47.5 Message-ID: <365d9964.0@newsread1.dircon.co.uk> Date: 26 Nov 1998 18:09:40 GMT X-Trace: 26 Nov 1998 18:09:40 GMT, 194.112.47.5 Lines: 21 Path: news.columbia.edu!news.new-york.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!easynet-tele!peer1.news.dircon.net!peer2.news.dircon.net!newsread1.dircon.co.uk!news.dircon.co.uk!194.112.47.5 Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204639 comp.arch:79089 comp.unix.admin:88233 In article , pete@fenelon.zetnet.co.uk says... > >Dennis Ritchie wrote: >> Rich Rashid was around a couple of weeks ago, and >> said that there were 300+ employees in MS research. > >One of the best quotes I saw recently, when MS were setting up their >new research centre in Cambridge, was that "they wouldn't be poaching >first-class brains". On a completely frivolous note, 300 people sounds about the size of Acorn before it was wound up:-):-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ian Kemmish 18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ, UK ian@five-d.com Tel: +44 1767 601 361 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Behind every successful organisation stands one person who knows the secret of how to keep the managers away from anything truly important. Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: 26 Nov 1998 20:46:12 GMT Lines: 21 Message-ID: <73kemk$la7$2@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <365C4687.EFABEB85@cs.wisc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-206.dialup.zetnet.co.uk ŠX-Trace: irk.zetnet.co.uk 912113172 21831 194.247.43.7 (26 Nov 1998 20:46:12 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Nov 1998 20:46:12 GMT X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204642 comp.arch:79090 comp.unix.admin:88234 On 1998-11-25 glew@cs.wisc.edu said: :Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin :> Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the :>transistor, Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that :matter? :Umm.... if I have my dates correct, Intel wasn't even founded :(1968) until the AT&T patent on the bipolar transistor (1948) :had expired. :Not to mention, of course, that Intel didn't use AT&T's bipolar :transistors much, but quickly became a MOS transistor house. And :the MOS transistor was invented by Lilienfeld in 1925. Hang on... Just about everything I've read says that "the transistor was invented in 1948 at Bell Labs by Bardeen, Brattan and the fascist". What's the story here? How did the transistor that we'd all end up using for logic anyway come to be invented 23 years before anybody took any notice of it? -- Communa (lisard@zetnet.co.uk) -- you know soft spoken changes nothing Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.shore.net!news.mv.net!not-for-mail From: junkmail@moreira.mv.com (Alberto Moreira) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: Realizing the promise of computing Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 01:23:57 GMT Organization: MV Communications Lines: 23 Message-ID: <365dfe89.508255@news.mv.net> References: <36534035.0@news.victoria.tc.ca> <737fdf$ebb@jamesa.cstone.net> <36576A68.6DD8@ibm.net> <73ca22$3r010@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> <73dtuq$62q$1@galileo.thp.univie.ac.at> <365B80CF.2843@ibm.net> <365C3C34.45F9C9B0@cs.wisc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: moreira.mv.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: news.columbia.edu alt.folklore.computers:204628 comp.arch:79082 comp.unix.admin:88223 Also sprach Andy Glew : >> Just not to the people who did it. Who made more off the transistor, >> Bell Labs or Intel? Or Fujitsu/Hitachi/Sony for that matter? > >One might reasonably point out that the transistor itself >is not worth very much. The real invention that opened >up the floodgates of our modern age was integrated >circuits --- and more important than this, was the use >of 2D planar lithography based manufacturing methods, >that permitted mass manufacture. ŠIf you were around when computers moved from vacuum tubes to transistors, maybe you would better appreciate the impact of the transistor in computing. Just compare an old Univac 1105 with an 1107, or with an IBM 1401, or 1620, or 1130, or an IBM 7044 for that matter: it was like moving from junk food to a gourmet restaurant! Alberto.