Comment General concepts (was Re:Hrm...) (Score 1) 394
> 2. "Where is the innovation? Microsoft, mostly".
That statement is only partially true. Sure, MS has innovated and met their goals. However, the mostly qualifier is highly untrue.
Case in point: IBM is and has been on the forefront of truly scientific research for years. If you care to take a look at their website and read about some of their studies in trade publications (not just computer trade, but Scientific American, et al.), you will notice that they are at the forefront of research for things such as quantum teleportation, metallurgy, photochemistry, and many other disparate disciplines.
SGI has also developed a very close approximation to a truly random number generator (in a fairly silly fashion) at lavarand.sgi.com, capable of generating a very large amount of almost true random data.
It seems that people are blurring the lines between the words "research", "innovation", and "profitability". There is a large difference between research done following a business plan to meet a corporate mission statement, and scientific research done to expand human knowledge as a whole, and I think this guy, from Bell Labs of all places, has lost sight of that fact. Maybe time to retire?
Jason McManus
<infiATsleepdepDOTnet>
--
call a spade a spade.
That statement is only partially true. Sure, MS has innovated and met their goals. However, the mostly qualifier is highly untrue.
Case in point: IBM is and has been on the forefront of truly scientific research for years. If you care to take a look at their website and read about some of their studies in trade publications (not just computer trade, but Scientific American, et al.), you will notice that they are at the forefront of research for things such as quantum teleportation, metallurgy, photochemistry, and many other disparate disciplines.
SGI has also developed a very close approximation to a truly random number generator (in a fairly silly fashion) at lavarand.sgi.com, capable of generating a very large amount of almost true random data.
It seems that people are blurring the lines between the words "research", "innovation", and "profitability". There is a large difference between research done following a business plan to meet a corporate mission statement, and scientific research done to expand human knowledge as a whole, and I think this guy, from Bell Labs of all places, has lost sight of that fact. Maybe time to retire?
Jason McManus
<infiATsleepdepDOTnet>
--
call a spade a spade.
