Slashdot Mirror


Happy 60th Birthday IBM Research

HockeyPuck writes "On Tuesday, IBM Research celebrated it's 60th Birthday "IBM inventions and discoveries include the programming language Fortran (1957), magnetic storage (1955), the relational database (1970), DRAM (dynamic random access memory) cells (1962), the RISC (reduced instruction set computer) chip architecture (1980), fractals (1967), superconductivity (1987) and the Data Encryption Standard (1974). In the last 12 years, IBM has received 29,021 patents--more than any other company or individual in the world.""

212 comments

  1. Microchannel by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny


    Don't forget good old MCA. ^_^

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Microchannel by should_be_linear · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Don't forget On Demand Computing invented in 1942 to automate persecution of the Jews. http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

      --
      839*929
    2. Re:Microchannel by just_another_sean · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh sure it was a proprietary, nightmare attempt to stave off the clones, but hey the idea was sound and Billy G. had to steal the concept of Plug and Play from someone right? :)

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3. Re:Microchannel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This actually isn't flamebait. It's something that is getting posted in just about every thread on FARK. So, actually: Off topic/Old and busted.

    4. Re:Microchannel by Felis+Catus · · Score: 0

      TMM, with an exaggerattedly limp wrist, and a lisp, said:

        ^_^

      TMM, you are either a 14 year old girl, or highly homosexual.

    5. Re:Microchannel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tribute to Seymour Cray
      It is fitting that we pay tribute today to Seymour Cray, the individual who
      created the ... and an instruction set that was later to be referred to as RISC. ...
      www.cgl.ucsf.edu/home/tef/cray/tribute.html

    6. Re:Microchannel by Blackjetta · · Score: 1

      I think the Link about the Holocaust sounds like someone who knows what they're talking about. You ought to take a look IBM Employee.

    7. Re:Microchannel by roger_and_out · · Score: 1

      Ever taken a moment to note the similarities between MCA and PCI? No, I didn't think you had.

      --
      Sig server unavailable. Please try again later.
    8. Re:Microchannel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're interested in sending fan mail, TripMaster Monkey is really Michael Hokenson of 1515 Crystal Lake Cir. Apt #5, Green Bay, WI 54311

      I'm sure he'd appreciate anything witty or insightful, especially if it's received early in the day (First Mail gets priority reading).

    9. Re:Microchannel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so glad you're not posting on Slashdot anymore you worthless pile of human shit.

  2. IBM did not discover or invent fractals by LeonGeeste · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And they didn't coin the term in that year, according to Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractals#Contribution s_from_classical_analysis

    I know it's fashionable to inflate the importance of whomever or whatever you're trying to laud, but this is just a little over-reaching. Anyone catch any of the other discoveries?

    --
    Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    1. Re:IBM did not discover or invent fractals by strider44 · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the page you linked:

      Mandelbrot's contributions

      In the 1960s Benoît Mandelbrot started investigating self-similarity in papers such as How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension. This built on earlier work by Lewis Fry Richardson. Taking a highly visual approach, Mandelbrot recognised connections between these previously unrelated strands of mathematics. In 1975 Mandelbrot coined the word fractal to describe self-similar objects which had no clear dimension. He derived the word fractal from the Latin fractus, meaning broken or irregular, and not from the word fractional, as is commonly believed. However, fractional itself is derived ultimately from fractus as well.

      From the page on Benoît Mandelbrot

      In 1958 the couple moved to the United States where Mandelbrot joined the research staff at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York. He remained at IBM for the rest of his working life, becoming an IBM Fellow, and later Fellow Emeritus.

    2. Re:IBM did not discover or invent fractals by reverseengineer · · Score: 4, Informative
      IBM did not discover superconductivity in 1987 either- superconductivity was discovered in 1913(?) by Heike Kammerlingh Onnes. What was discovered by Bednorz and Muller (working for IBM) in the 1980s was the first instance of "high-temperature" superconductivity. Whereas the original type of superconductivity was found mostly in metals and metallic alloys, and is only present at temperatures below about 30 Kelvin, the new superconductors discovered by IBM and others were ceramics that were still superconducting at temperatures above 30K, and eventually above 77K where liquid nitrogen, rather than liquid helium could cool them. So IBM scientists made an important discovery, but did not "discover superconductivity"- in fact, quite a bit was known about superconductivity at that time.

      It's analogous to the parent's contention about fractals- Benoit Mandelbrot's paper about the length of England's coastline was certainly very important to the study of fractals (and I didn't know he worked for IBM until looking it up just now), but it doesn't constitute a discovery or invention.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    3. Re:IBM did not discover or invent fractals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lately it's also been fashionable to deflate the importance of anyone who has generally been lauded in the past, while simultaneously inflating the efforts of minor contributors. The so-called revisionist history trend.

      For example, we know that people like Thomas Jefferson et al. were not the saints that history books tend to protray. But I don't think we should spend all our time in history classes focusing on Jefferson's human deficiencies and then devote a single sentence to the fact that he largely wrote the Declaration of Independence. But that's how many academics currently feel. I can't help but think they do that because by diminishing others' greatness, they feel better about their own insignificance.

    4. Re:IBM did not discover or invent fractals by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Sorry I misunderstood what the GP wrote, I thought he was claiming that IBM didn't coin the word fractal and though I still disagree that Mandelbrot wasn't a pioneer of fractal geometry my above post is quite irrelevent. Feel free to mod me down.

      Anyway IBM has plenty of other stuff to brag about.

    5. Re:IBM did not discover or invent fractals by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Fractals as they are understood and used today were researched and invented by an IBM employee. Mandelbrot discovered them while in the hospital and had nothing else to do (or so the story goes). There were earlier mentions of similar functions, but thats like saying Newton is directly responsible for getting man on the moon. In a sense its true, but I don't think itd be an accurate statement. People were investigating similar things to fractals before Mandelbrot, but its safe to say that he is the one that really took the idea and ran with it, making it into a usable mathematical theory.
      Regards,
      Steve

    6. Re:IBM did not discover or invent fractals by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Thanks for admitting that at best it was "a guy in a hospital who had nothing better to do" who invented fractals, not "IBM". I'm working on a machine translator program in my spare time. But I guess if I succeed, Slashdot will have an article many years later that "[LeonGeeste's employer] invented many things like machine translation (2007)...". (yes, that is an accurate analogy because in both cases, some version of the technology preceded the "invention" date)

      Also, let's not forget that the summary says that IBM invented fractals. Not "took and ran with", not "really did some cool stuff with", not "developed"... invented.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    7. Re:IBM did not discover or invent fractals by AugstWest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I could go ask him, his office is just down the hall.

      I'll never forget my first day here, a cow-orker was showing me around, and I walked by an office door that said "Mandelbrot."

      He's the nicest guy. He's 81, but you'd think he was about 60. Very funny, and very personable.

  3. Discoveries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone else notice that all of the "Inventions and Discoveries" are actually all inventions? Perhaps a nit-picky point, but there are no discoveries listed... (granted, electron tunneling is mentioned in TFA, but the specific paragraph citing "inventions and discoveries" lists none.

    1. Re:Discoveries? by smcleish · · Score: 1

      Isn't superconductivity a discovery then?

      --
      You can rent this space for $5 a week.
    2. Re:Discoveries? by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      I would definitely count fractals as discoveries, not inventions.
      I would say that the abstract set of points that make up for example the mandelbrot fractal according to some mathematical rule, 'existed' before the first plot of it was made. (and no plot can even capture all points)

    3. Re:Discoveries? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we can't use the word "patents" now as it's an IBM friendly day today. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Discoveries? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Fractals and superconductivity are discoveries. They didn't *create* fractals, they just found them... same with superconductivity. I don't know what definition you're going by for the word "invent."

  4. IBM Patents by bigtallmofo · · Score: 3, Funny

    IBM has received 29,021 patents--more than any other company or individual in the world.

    In a related note, The SCO Group, Inc. (SCOX) has announced that they are suing IBM for 29,021 counts of using their intellectual property within IBM inventions.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  5. oh no! by SuperBanana · · Score: 1, Funny
    [big list of nifty cool inventions]

    Yay!

    In the last 12 years, IBM has received 29,021 patents--more than any other company or individual in the world

    Oooo, patents BAD! EVIL! BAD EVIL!

    Wait, so do we like them or not? Aaaaaaa! [Head implodes]

    1. Re:oh no! by ip_fired · · Score: 1

      We only hate stupid software patents like the infamous OneClick shopping cart, or the patent that is so vague and broad that it covers 90% of technology today.

      Specific, insightful patents that are actually used to create something (instead to use as a litigation revenue stream) are okay.

      Unfortunately, many companies think that owning stupid software patents is the only way you can make money on software. They have been influenced by the *bad* type of patent. ugh.

      --
      Don't count your messages before they ACK.
    2. Re:oh no! by computerdude33 · · Score: 1

      Say, I should own a patent that states:

      "Patent 1000000000: Server-side system to post replies to comments relating to anniversary stories."

      --
      computerdude33's stuff: My blog of wonder.
    3. Re:oh no! by boldtbanan · · Score: 1

      It's not the bad patents that influence them, it's the bad court decisions that back up the bad patents.

    4. Re:oh no! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 0

      Some of us are against all software patents, stupid or not.
      (in fact they're illegal where I'm writing from (as such)).

      And IBM own, and have threatened to assert, some dodgy software patents, e.g. LZW compression.

      (They threatened to use it against TSCOG, using a bad weapon against bad people. A but like nuking Saddam).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:oh no! by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      This is patent is not insightfull :)

  6. What about teleportation? by YodaToo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You hardly ever hear about their teleportation research.

    1. Re:What about teleportation? by jurt1235 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is because they compare it with sending a fax. They show that the fax machine they would device with this quantum technique would completely disrupt the original, while sending a perfect version to the other side, which would require the receiver to send it back to you again, again distroying his version, etc etc etc.. So at this moment totally impractical technique at this moment for faxing. The only usefull thing you could do with this, is like teleport a person, but since IBM is not in traveling, but more in business machines (hence the name), they will just not develop this since it does not add in a practical way to the bottomline of the company (read the article about 60 years of research department).
      The other problem with this teleportation is that it looks like to me that they need to transport a same amount of quanta to the receiver already from the entangled pair. Also this should be a specific entangled pair, else it would be received somewhere else. So at the moment you want to send a fax for example, it will go fast and very accurate, however, the preparation sort of takes all the efficiency out of it.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    2. Re:What about teleportation? by aicrules · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Waaaaait a minute. You say their teleportation basically destroys the local version and creates an exact replica on the other end....so it's NOT good for inanimate object transport. However, you then say the only useful thing you could do is transport a PERSON?!? So, you think it makes sense to clone people repeatedly while destroying the original each time?? Even throwing out the views of the religious segment of our population, that doesn't exactly seem like a good idea.

    3. Re:What about teleportation? by somersault · · Score: 1

      If they recorded the original information from the stream couldnt they recreate the original on the transporter's side, and also on the recievers side? Would also be a good way to store backups.. hehe

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:What about teleportation? by Frastolator · · Score: 1

      Wait, if you can create a copy, why destroy the original?? This seems funny somehow!

    5. Re:What about teleportation? by YodaToo · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase Steve Grand in Creation, that's Star Trek's dirty little secret...we can send a copy of you places instantly, but we must destroy you in the process. If memory serves, a similar approach was employed in Crichton's Timeline.

    6. Re:What about teleportation? by dario_moreno · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you cannot create a perfect copy without destroying the original since you have to measure the state of each of the atoms of the original, thereby destroying the "quantumness" of those states (ie the fact that they can be a superposition of eigenstates). Nevertheless with quantum teleportation you can transport the information stating that an atom is in a superposition of states (which might be the case of consciousness).

      --
      Google passes Turing test : see my journal
    7. Re:What about teleportation? by Frastolator · · Score: 1

      But if you make one copy, destroy the original,.......what about another 3 copies of the original. I do not see this as a means of transport. I see it as making copies of objects.

    8. Re:What about teleportation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it isn't a cloning machine, it is a teleportation machine. And even then it doesn't transfer any matter at all, just the information needed to reconstruct the quantum state at the other end (in the process destroying the quantum state of the original). So no, there is no way you could build a practical machine to teleport a person with this.

    9. Re:What about teleportation? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the ethical issues depend on how much is copied. If my entire body is copied, as well as my thoughts, memories, and personality, would it matter? I mean, if I could convince anyone who knows me (myself included) that I'm still me, then did I change at all?

    10. Re:What about teleportation? by Idealius · · Score: 1

      Moving the zillion atoms that make up the human body seems like a longshot at best.

      Does it matter which atoms and molecules you use as long as they construct the same end result?

    11. Re:What about teleportation? by dario_moreno · · Score: 1

      for each copy you destroy the original...so you have only one copy at maximum at each moment ! The teleportation is in the fact that you can send by radio (or other means) all the information you have measured (destroying the original in the process) and reassemble at another point a copy taking from a reservoir of atoms in all possible states. (which you have to manage to transport somehow). If the remote atoms from the reservoir are quantally correlated (entangled) to the original, measuring system then you can have quantum teleportation (teleporting systems in a superposition of eigenstates) which is in principle perfect. People have done it for individual atoms.

      --
      Google passes Turing test : see my journal
    12. Re:What about teleportation? by aicrules · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you would be okay ceasing to exist in favor of a perfect copy of yourself? You realize that you would not be around to be fine with it or not. I know I would much rather not cease to exist for the convenience of teleportation.

      I guess if we amount to nothing more than a bunch of atoms in a certain configuration, then it doesn't really matter pragmatically. Ethically and morally it seems suspect though.

    13. Re:What about teleportation? by beff · · Score: 1
      Oooh, oooh. OK, this reminds me of a short story by . . . . Bradbury? Aliens show up and are willing to give us advanced technology, one is a teleporter that will teleport you across the galaxy, but we have to learn how to use it first. It makes an exact duplicate of you on the other side of the galaxy using something similar to quantum teleportation. They only problem is now, there's two copies of you. The Alien's solution is to keep the original in stasis until receipt of a message (delayed by 30 seconds or so) that the copy is up and functioning, then destroying the original. Well, there was an error in the ACK and they couldn't destroy the original w/o knowning that the copy was good. So, they had to wait around for a day or so to figure out what happened, and since stasis was only good for a couple of minutes, they had to let the original out. So, she's sitting around wondering why everyone is on pins and needles. The next day, the find out the copy is alive and well, and it comes down to the human trainee to explain it to the original that she was suppose to be killed, and if she'd just walk into this little room here, we can complete the process. . . . . much angst, etc. ensued. . . ..


      Anyone else remember this story? The name?


      OK, back to your regularly scheduled program.

    14. Re:What about teleportation? by Frastolator · · Score: 1

      My lack of knowledge on this matter is clear. I see how it works now after you clearly described it.

    15. Re:What about teleportation? by cyborg_zx · · Score: 1

      The atoms that make up any individual are being rearranged all the time - it may matter to an individual on an emotional level but from a physical perspective it is totally inconsequential. One carbon atom is very much like another.

    16. Re:What about teleportation? by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Maybe they accidentaly telesourced it to India...

    17. Re:What about teleportation? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I don't remember the name, but I do know that they made a TV episode about it on Bradbury's TV show.

    18. Re:What about teleportation? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      Would I cease to exist? To my mind, I wouldn't notice anything between when the teleportation starts and ends. I'd be in an exactly identical body, and my mind would be exactly unchanged. therefore, I'm the same person. If I did it to you while you were sleeping, you'd never notice.

    19. Re:What about teleportation? by aicrules · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't actually be YOUR mind. It would just be a completely accurate replication of your mind, body, etc... your duplicate would THINK that everything was a-okay, but the original you would be dead. Yes, everyone around you wouldn't know any different. However, what if the original you did NOT get destroyed and there were two of you. How would you feel about that? Still feel like nothing changed?

    20. Re:What about teleportation? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      However, what if the original you did NOT get destroyed and there were two of you. How would you feel about that? Still feel like nothing changed?
      According to quantum mechanics, that isn't possible, as the very act of recording my information for transport would alter all the atoms in my body, destroying me. However, if that didn't work, then we're in a totally different ballgame. We're making clones or something, which would be bad.

      The assumption of my statement was that the transporter worked perfectly, and a body and mind identical to me in every way appeared somewhere else, and the original body was destroyed. And in that case it would be ME, because it is an exact copy of ME, and the only copy of ME. There is only one of me, and it is identical to the me before the teleportation, just elsewhere.

    21. Re:What about teleportation? by Altus · · Score: 1


      was that bradbury's TV show or outer limits? I remember seeing that episode... pretty decent... except the aliens were dinosaurs for some inadequately explained reason... that was rather odd.

        still... cant remember the name...

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    22. Re:What about teleportation? by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      But the problem is that there needn't be only one copy. Sure, you have to destroy the original, but you can make TWO copies instead of just one, and they would both be you. The illusion that your consciousness actually exists and isn't just a biological machine in your skull would be hampered a bit.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    23. Re:What about teleportation? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Now that you mention it, it might have been the outer limits. From memory, I believe the video quality looked like it was taped rather than filmed, and I believe Bradbury's show was filmed. I think the point of the alians being dinosours was that they just wanted non-huminoid alieans.

    24. Re:What about teleportation? by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      Moving the zillion atoms that make up the human body seems like a longshot at best.

      Does it matter which atoms and molecules you use as long as they construct the same end result?


      In my thoughts, wouldn't it also have to be absolutely instantanious? Like, it can't just scan you in like in TRON, nor could it phase you out like Star Trek. Wouldn't your atoms be constantly changing or moving as it scans you in? The blood pumping through your veins would be in the wrong place, the electrons pulsing through your brain and body (even if you're completely unconcious) would be in different places/positions... Chances are, if this takes even longer than a fraction of a blink of an eye, you could be teleported incorectly as the one part of you that was teleported, say, the left half of your eye, is now in a different position than the right half of your eye because your eye was in the process of moving while you were being scanned in.. As great as it could be, there's some serious hurdles in the future of THAT idea.

    25. Re:What about teleportation? by crabpeople · · Score: 0

      I thought conciousness was the collective will of your cells to keep you alive.

      if everything is duplicated, so is that. in the case of a copy, both entities would be you. As long as everyone agrees that theres no life after death, i see no problem with this method of travel. even if i had to kill my copy i would still be alive. I would probably offer to die for my duplicate but he, being me, would offer as well. i guess an impartial third party would just shoot one of us.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    26. Re:What about teleportation? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, all the atoms in your body turn over every few years anyways, i.e. little or none of you is "original."

    27. Re:What about teleportation? by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that on your end, as far as you personally are concerned you are destroyed ie. Dead. Now on the other end there may be someone running about that looks, talks like you and thinks that they are you but they aren't because you are dead and floating around.

    28. Re:What about teleportation? by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Oh, both copies would be conscious, for sure. They'd both be conscious in the same way that we are right now. My point was actually that consciousness is itself an illusion. We think, but that doesn't mean that we are. We really aren't. And what I mean by this is that if we can duplicate ourselves, and the duplicate is us in every meaningful way, then that means that our consciousness is just a function of the operation of our brain. And if THAT is true, then that means that consciousness isn't really anything at all. We could be (well, are) the original us, go to sleep, and when we wake up, instead of finding ourselves in either the original or the duplicate, we are in BOTH simultaneously - but with no telepathic link. It's simply that everything that makes us who we are inside of us is now duplicated. There is no unique us at all.

      Of course, it is possible to get used to the idea. And if you're used to that idea, then... why kill the original? Why not just have two? I've thought of doing just that, if possible, except to have a million of me. My own army of me. It doesn't matter how many of us are killed: the great thing about being me is that there are so many me's!

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
  7. People invented those things by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We should be celebrating the people of IBM research along with the organization. Several very genius individuals were the driving force behind the listed patents. Of course, IBM was great to house them and help them succeed, but let's bless the baby too, not just the carriage.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:People invented those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, it's the carriage that's doing the job really.

    2. Re:People invented those things by kfg · · Score: 1

      The important elements of that picture are both people. The carriage is merely a tool which can do nothing without them.

      KFG

    3. Re:People invented those things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but no. Those people could NOT have done anything without IBM, but IBM could easily have invented those things without those specific people.

  8. Superconductivity by DrLudicrous · · Score: 4, Informative

    Superconductivity was not discovered by IBM, and it also occurred much earlier than 1987. The BCS theory of superconductivity came out in 1957, and the phenomenon itself was first seen in mercury by Onnes in 1911. And while high-Tc superconducters were first seen at IBM, this occurred in 1986.

  9. Happy Birthday by TarrySingh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gramps!

    --
    Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
  10. I think IBM have done some fantastic research. by murdochrjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whilst it's popular and fashionable here on Slashdot to dismiss large corporations, particularly IT behomoths like Big Blue, as a CS student I am impressed by the quality of IBM's research and development. Real work that deserves real patents, and real recognition.

    1. Re:I think IBM have done some fantastic research. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real innovative work of course deserves patents, no one disputes that.

      IBM have innovated and because of that have achieved many useful and undisputable patents but really, six worthy ideas a day, every day, over the course of twelve years (I'm averaging of course, in the beginning patents applications were a fraction of what they are today) is absurb.

      I congratulate them for all they've done but rather then looking upon the 29 thousand patents as a number to celebrate, it only dissapoints me because of the recent paths that the system has taken.

    2. Re:I think IBM have done some fantastic research. by kbahey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whilst it's popular and fashionable here on Slashdot to dismiss large corporations

      You must be new here!

      IBM are the good guys around here these days, since they embrace open source, promote Linux, ...etc. Also Apple are among the good guys this week ...

      The bad guys are often Red Hat, and always Microsoft ...

      Seriously, IBM use to be the big 800 lb gorilla of the IT industry (before it was called IT). They bullied everyone else, used Fear Uncertainity and Doubt (FUD), and in the 70s and 80s were everything that Microsoft is today: monoplistic, greedy, arrogant ...

      After the minis and client server era of the 90s, they came out humbled and seem to have changed for the better ...

      In the corporate world, it is like international diplomacy, there are no permanet good guys or permanent bad guys ... everyone changes over time ..., including SCO, and maybe Google in the future ...

    3. Re:I think IBM have done some fantastic research. by rajafarian · · Score: 1

      ... I am impressed by the quality of IBM's research and development.

      Me too.

      And now for some obligatory MS bashing: why doesn't anything like this come out of Microsoft's billions in research? Is most of their research spent on marketing?

    4. Re:I think IBM have done some fantastic research. by Quino · · Score: 1

      I have to say I disagree somewhat.

      It's not as arbitrary as you claim. I think IBM and Google have done technically interesting things whereas Microsoft, on the other hand, is actually renowned for it's *inability* to innovate.

      I think if Microsoft had gotten where it is by invention and doing technically cool things, its image in this geek community would be different.

      It's not MS's success that makes it unpopular, and I think it's much more than IBM's support for linux that makes that company popular.

      For those reasons I don't think that Google nor IBM -- even if they turned "evil" would be as disliked as Microsoft, since both have "geek cred". At least there's a sense that they've earned their money by doing technically important things.

      Microsoft have never contributed technically in any substantial way (in any way? is there an example of a non-trivial technology to come out of that company ever?), and are evil (shady, illegal business tactics) on top of that, hence disliked.

    5. Re:I think IBM have done some fantastic research. by kbahey · · Score: 1

      I am not a defender of Microsoft by any means. I loath them for all the good reasons that you listed, and more...

      However, it is not only about Microsoft. It is a general comment on how people here react to companies.

      If you look at the general populace of Slashdot, as large and varied as it is, you will find that companies fall from grace easily. Think about SCO, which was positive to neutral only 2 or 3 years ago. Think of Red Hat and how they fell of favor after they stopped selling to individuals, earning the wrath of Slashdotters.

      This is very well said in some Funny posts saying: "Umm. I am confused now. So are we supposed to hate company X" and "Who are the good guys now"?

      I don't know if you are an older guy like me or from the younger crowd, but IBM, as innovative as it is, was REALLY REALLY loathed in the 70s and 80s. The term FUD was invented as a direct result of IBM tactics. There is a whole slew of jokes about IBM (the salesman wife making fun of him promising how it will be awesome, and nothing happens. The IBM engineers in a car getting a flat tire, ...etc.). The "no one got fired for buying IBM" adage, and more.

      It was its business practices that earned it its reputation, and not whether the products were good or bad.

      Many rejoiced when it started sliding before Lou Gerstner was hired to put it back in shape.

      So, I agree with you to some extent, but innovative or not, the key behind hating a company is its practices, not its technology ...

      How will Microsoft be perceived when they start to fall (a decade or two in the future?) I don't know, but I am sure that universities will be studying them, at least in economics and business courses ...

  11. Slightly more important... by cmossell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather than talk about inventing Fortran, wouldn't it be slightly more impressive to have invented the first widely used high level programming language? I mean, inventing a programming language that is still in use after 50 or so years is a rather impressive feat, but inventing "programming languages" is an order of magnitude more impressive.

    1. Re:Slightly more important... by Magnusite · · Score: 3, Informative
      Rather than talk about inventing Fortran, wouldn't it be slightly more impressive to have invented the first widely used high level programming language?

      FORTRAN is not my favorite language either, but it is a high level programming language. Plug boarding is low level programming. Flipping toggle switches to enter binary op-codes is low level programming. Entering hex codes at a terminal is low level programming.
      Writing in assembly language mnemonics is mid-level programming. Heck, before FORTRAN, macro assemblers and a few specialized tool libraries were the bees knees.
      What do you consider high level? Java? 4GL?

    2. Re:Slightly more important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your points are well taken but I think the parent was trying to say that FORTRAN is high level, and in fact was the first high level language. Thus, by saying "IBM invented FORTRAN" instead of "IBM invented high level programming" diminished the significance of the invention (not that FORTRAN is insignificant).

    3. Re:Slightly more important... by cmossell · · Score: 1

      My mistake if I was unclear. I'm trying to give IBM more credit for inventing high level languages, which is much more impressive than inventing one high level language.

    4. Re:Slightly more important... by TwobyTwo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The history of Fortran is quite interesting. My understanding is that John Backus and the team who built Fortran were so worried that assembler programmers wouldn't trust a compiler to generate code fast enough for the slow machines of the day that they implemented a slew of optimizations that were still viewed as aggressive 10-15 years later. Keep in mind that the compiler itself had to run on these slow machines, with limited memory (tens of KBytes), and mostly punch cards for storing object code, math libraries, etc. By the way, I met Backus once or twice in the late 1970's when I was a very junior member of the programming staff at IBM. He was already something of a legend in the languages community, and I've never met anyone in the field who was kinder, more down to earth, or more interested in having a chat with anyone, regardless of how old or young. The field needs more people like him.

    5. Re:Slightly more important... by Magnusite · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Oh, I seem to have read your post the wrong way. Well, in that case, nevermind.</rrv>

      Yes, I do believe that IBM and John Backus developed the earliest high level language.

    6. Re:Slightly more important... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      As I have heard it, they weren't just worried about optimization... when they started FORTRAN, the very idea of programming a computer in a naturalistic language (hey, it's all relative) was viewed as artificial intelligence, and nobody really knew whether they could get it to work at all.

    7. Re:Slightly more important... by TwobyTwo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, as I understand it, there were some earlier efforts, such as Speedcoding by Backus himself, so people had some sense that you could program at an abstraction above the machine level. From what I've read, things like Speedcoding weren't fast, and so speed was indeed viewed as a big hurdle. That said, my impression is that languages like FORTRAN were much more comprehensive and ambitious than earlier efforts, so your implication that people viewed it as magic (ahem, I meant AI) may be quite right.

  12. Superconductivity was invented before that by dybdahl · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Superconductivity is much older. Check your facts before posting things like that.

    1. Re:Superconductivity was invented before that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely the onus is on you to cite who, where and when?

    2. Re:Superconductivity was invented before that by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1

      Superconductivity was discovered by Kamerling Onnes in Leiden in 1911. 1987 was an impressive year in superconductivity research because the first material which became superconducting above liquid nitrogen's (as opposed to the much more expensive liquid helium) boiling point was discovered. Of course, this discovery was not made in some IBM research lab, but here at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

    3. Re:Superconductivity was invented before that by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1

      In case my previous post wasn't clear, I meant the discovery of high-temperature superconductors occurred here at UAH. Obviously UAH is in Huntsville, not Leiden.

  13. And yet, after all this time.... by jeaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...they still haven't learned how to hang onto top performers, make their employees happy to work there, or make money on an account without slashing headcount. Don't even get me started on the low pay. ** Warning; comments above are from a bitter, underpayed, overworked employee. They have not been filtered through management or spun through PR, so they may contain the truth. Please treat accordingly. **

    1. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...they still haven't learned how to hang onto top performers

      followed by....

      Warning; comments above are from a bitter, underpayed, overworked employee.

      So, you state to the world that you're not a top performer then complain that you feel underpayed ? How much do you feel they should pay bitter, average performers who post to Slashdot during work hours ? When they outsource your job to 5 guys in India that will work for 1/5 your salary, one could surf Slashdot all day while the other 4 do your job.

    2. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      Sure you're not working for HP?

      As far as I know, the friends that I have that work at IBM are generally pretty happy with both their jobs and their pay, where those that work at HP nowadays are treated like dirt and are miserable.

      Granted, this is in the Toronto area, so things may be different where you are. I'm sorry to hear that you don't like your job. Why haven't you bailed if it's that bad?

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    3. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by Ubergrendle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Granted your comment may be relevant, but I'm interested in finding the mythical corporation in which the conditions you describe do NOT exist.

      Size = bureacracy. Can't be avoided. But where many many other organisations have been choked by their own paperwork, IBM continues to be relevant in a very fast paced industry. Not a perfect company by any means, but better than most based on its track record.

      Generally speaking, the weight of "IBM Fellow" on your business card is worth more than a PhD IMHO.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    4. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by jeaster · · Score: 1

      ...they still haven't learned how to hang onto top performers I have two "1" reviews and seven "2" reviews, plus numerous peer and management awards, so I am implying that *I* am a top performer, but they hired me on with a low salary, and have given 5% raises 80% of the time. Also, each year the cost of our health care has risen significantly more than the raises. Granted, part of that is my fault, as my wife and I continue to have children :) As to surfing Slashdot and posting during working hours....well, I am doing that now, but the original post was made at 6 something this morning....more than one timezone exists, you know. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel a certain sense of entitlement to keep up with geek news during work hours, especially when work hours comprise sooo much of my day.

    5. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto to what he said.

      IBM has held on to me for 10 years, and I would consider myself a top performer.

      BTW, I work for research too. I am please with the 60 yr celebration.

    6. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by ameline · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I worked at IBM in Toronto for 8 years. And I agree with some of your sentiments, but it's not always as you portray. At the time, promotions were few and far between -- in my observation, you were either on the fast-track, and got promoted, or you weren't. Alias has been much better to me in this regard (and in many other regards as well).

      I was never a really great fit for IBMs culture (or to be specific, the culture at the Toronto Lab at the time) -- I'm too much of a loose cannon for their tastes. (Although at my present employer, I probably don't qualify for that description, as there are some looser ones around here -- Yes, Duncan, I'm thinking about you :-) But I do believe that having some smart and talented people who are not always doing what they're told is a very good thing.

      At least one person I worked with there (shared an office with for a time) is now an IBM Fellow. (Deservedly so, I should add -- he (Kevin Stoodley) is one of the sharpest people I've ever met or have the privilege of working with -- I could count the others in his league I've worked with on the fingers of 1 hand.)

      In hindsight, overall I found IBM to be a good place to work -- they treated people with respect, and didn't jerk anyone around so far as I could see. Now, being older, and perhaps a bit more grown up (ok not that much :-), I would work there again if circumstances were appropriate, and the right opportunity arose. (That said, I'm not looking to leave Alias unless the Autodesk merger competly butchers the culture here -- have to wait and see what happens.)

      --
      Ian Ameline
    7. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surfing Slashdot is well within the bounds of IBM's policy for Internet use, but you already know that.

      I'm curious: give that you've been with IBM for nine years, and you have felt underpaid since being hired on a low salary, why have you stayed?

      I think that people who work for IBM make a choice to trade some potential upside on income for the relative [but not absolute] stability of working for a large organization; classic risk-reward analysis.

      I know people who left for startups and never have to work again. I know others who lost almost everything.

      Me, I value the stability [e.g. fear the downside] more than I want the upside potential. YMMV.

    8. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by skoryky · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, the weight of "IBM Fellow" on your business card is worth more than a PhD IMHO.

      I should hope so, considering that having a Ph.D. is practically a prerequisite for becoming a Fellow, and there are only 60 in a company of more than 300,000 ;P

    9. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by jeaster · · Score: 1

      You are completely correct. At first, I was thrilled to be working for "The IBM", but now, as my skills, and confidence have grown, my pay has not. I have myself to blame for staying too long, as I do have a large family to support, and liked the relative stability. It has gotten to the point though that I am no longer able to support my family (in the means to which they are accustomed) AND stay with IBM. Caveat: I do know this is whining when I have so much more than so many others in the world, and even in my community. I am grateful for all I have, but I am also American, and I want what others doing the same job are getting. End of thread (for me)

    10. Re:And yet, after all this time.... by ameline · · Score: 1

      So it seems that for you, as it was for me, compensation is a significant reason for leaving. Do it. IBM feels comfortable and safe, I know, but you should get out now if they aren't paying you what youre worth.

      --
      Ian Ameline
  14. Re:Patents?!? by radicalskeptic · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
  15. pshh by trybywrench · · Score: 3, Funny

    "IBM inventions and discoveries include the programming language Fortran (1957), magnetic storage (1955), the relational database (1970), DRAM (dynamic random access memory) cells (1962), the RISC (reduced instruction set computer) chip architecture (1980), fractals (1967), superconductivity (1987) and the Data Encryption Standard (1974)"

    pshhh is that all? :eyeroll:

    --
    I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
  16. And in the same time... by Dam's · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... microsoft invented... ?

    euh, do they have a major -not ripped from someone else- invention or patent ?

    (no, the isNot patent doesn't count)

    1. Re:And in the same time... by NotFamous · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... microsoft invented... ?

      Clippy!

      --
      Some settling may occur during posting.
    2. Re:And in the same time... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      That's the philosphy difference. MS doesn't hire PhD's in the quantities that Google or IBM do. MS doesn't devote people to "blue sky" kinds of problems on the order that Google and definitely IBM do. SO that's why, in my opinion, you don't see MS come up with anything earth shattering. It's just not their thing.

      Of course, looking at it cynically, MS just uses the rest of the world as their R&D department. Somebody comes up with an idea, MS buys it, steals it, copies it, or does the old "embrace and extend" on it.

    3. Re:And in the same time... by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      It's unfair to say Microsoft only invented Clippy. They have also invented something much worse... the COMBO BOX.

    4. Re:And in the same time... by joschm0 · · Score: 0
      ... microsoft invented... ?

      Don't forget Bob.

      --
      01/20/09
    5. Re:And in the same time... by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      Well, I heard it has been used quite successfully as a torture device, and is currently responsible for breaking the will of office workers and turning them into corporate zombies, surely that's worth something?

    6. Re:And in the same time... by Jorkapp · · Score: 1

      While Microsoft's inventions may not be earth-shattering, many of them are quite practical and reliable. While Google et al are gazing off into the stars, Microsoft is still quite down to earth.

      --
      Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
    7. Re:And in the same time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish people would stop saying Google is the big inventor. I have seen nothing that is truly an original invention of Google's. What they are very good at is taking an existing idea or technology and making it more efficient or designing a new interface to it.

      Microsoft, Adobe & Apple do actually spend large amounts on R&D and have created significant original inventions.

    8. Re:And in the same time... by ntropic · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly that isn't totally true. Whatever, their product groups may do, from speaking to some guys from Microsoft Research at a recent conference and from other sources, they hire lots of PhDs and are doing blue-sky research esp. in the bio-computing area. Also, look at the number and quality of papers from MS Research in any of the theoretical computer science conferences. In fact, a friend of mine recently completed his PhD in machine learning and had an offer from Google and MS Research and took the latter. According to him (and he has interned with MS), Google Labs is much more product focused than MSR and he was convinced that he would get more freedom to work on his interests in MS Research (and they apparently pay more to fresh PhDs).

    9. Re:And in the same time... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      Whatever, their product groups may do, from speaking to some guys from Microsoft Research at a recent conference and from other sources, they hire lots of PhDs and are doing blue-sky research esp. in the bio-computing area

      Huh. That's...interesting. Just wondering, what do they call bio-computing (I can think of a few things that come under that heading, potentially).

      The stats I'd seens showed that, percentage-wise, Google had more PhD's, though that still has them losing the overall numbers game obviously even if that's true.

      I'm interested though - if MS does have all these researchers, where are the cool results? Is the problem that they have one creative group of people doing cool research, another group doing production, and no way to connect the two? Because I've gotta say, I've never seen MS come out with anything particularly clever, either as a finished product or even a feature of a product.

  17. 60? by Stu+L+Tissimus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I mean, 50 or 75 I could understand, but 60? Bah! Multiples of 10.

    No, but really, IBM Research basically made the computer what it is today. So happy birthday to one of the most innovative groups on the face of the earth. They basically made the computer what it is today, you know.... Just about everything that's more complicated than a microwave has some RISC derivative in it.

    --
    A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
  18. Linux by NotFamous · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They forgot Linux!

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  19. Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by BBCWatcher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's probably appropriate to mention that IBM Research once had a rival of sorts: Bell Labs. Bell Labs and IBM Research were two of the very few commercial institutions that engaged in basic scientific research -- research that would often yield scientific breakthroughs but much less often commercial success. Now Bell Labs is all but gone, but IBM Research thrives. Thank goodness for IBM Research, and kudos to the IBM managers who still keep the "this quarter" Wall Street monsters at bay in order to spend the billions it takes for science.

    1. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by DrLudicrous · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. I was a summer intern at Bell Labs in 2000, and more or less watched the disintegration of one of the greatest research institutions ever happen in realtime. It was a sad thing to witness, though much of what led to Bell Labs current situation occurred before summer of '00, but the financial situation and layoffs are what began then. If you want to talk about interesting groundbreaking research, it's Bell Labs hands down. These are the people that invented the transistor and the laser, discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation, and churned out multiple generations of talented chemists, engineers, physicists, and computer scientists (I believe UNIX and the C programming language also came out of Bell Labs). It's demise should be lamented, though I still have hope that one day it might return to its former glory as a place of fundamental research, instead of research oriented exclusively towards developing profitable merchandise in the short term due to the demands of Wall Street.

    2. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by pmike_bauer · · Score: 1

      But NOW we have Google Labs.

      --
      I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    3. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhh im sorry, google labs comes no where near IBM or Bell labs.. Go back to the basement. NOW!

    4. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by sysgeek01 · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true. Bell Labs operates under the name of Lucent Technologies. But Lucent is the equivilent of junk bond status on the market right now.

    5. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

      Not quite, Lucent inherited BTL in the spinout from AT&T. But it's become little more than the product development arm of that company, and a shadow of its Ma Bell days as probably the largest private research facility in the free world.

    6. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Computer science is cool, but Google Labs will never do anything as fundamentally world-changing as invent the transistor. It takes more than computer science and IT to be the next Bell Labs. It takes real physics!

    7. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by pmike_bauer · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! The post was made in jest.

      --
      I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    8. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by dr.+loser · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely right. I was a postdoc at Bell from '98 to '00, and got out just before everything completely imploded.

      There has definitely been an evolution from long-term basic research to short term applied research in industry, particularly as the '90s attitude of "what can we do to juice our stock price this quarter" trumped "how can we lay the foundation for the next NN years of our industry". Of course, places like IBM Research (which is also something of a shadow of its former self in the physical sciences) and Bell Labs were able to subsist because they were the result of "accidental" monopolies with nearly guaranteed revenue streams.

      Bear in mind that US research (not development!) $ per GDP is plummeting compared to Europe, China, and India. The NSF's entire annual budget is only one sixths of NIH, only three weeks worth of the Iraq war, and only around 1% of the annual service on the federal debt!

    9. Re:Mourning the Loss of Bell Labs by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Ah, nicely done then.

      I wonder where you can do corporate research these days besides IBM and defense contractors like B.A.E.

  20. Only 29,021 patents? by Ingolfke · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    IBM has received 29,021 patents--more than any other company or individual in the world.

    Yeah, I've recieved 28,973 myself. Seriously, isn't it redundant that no individual could recieve more than 29,021 patents in a 12 year period? That's averaging 6.6 patents per day.

    1. Re:Only 29,021 patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. 'redundant' does not mean the same thing as 'obvious'.

  21. Another 60th birthday by CaptainZapp · · Score: 5, Informative
    Another birthday child deserves mentioning for its 60th birthday:

    LSD was invented 60 years ago by Professor Albert Hofman, who will celebrate his 100th birthday come January.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  22. :D by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

    Thats quite a few useful things :D Give it another 60 years and they'll have their own small planet for research purposes only :p

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  23. Mod Parent Down! He's an imposter! by TripMaster_Monky · · Score: 0

    I am the real TMM ^_^

    --
    __________
    |rip/\/\aster /\/\onky
    1. Re:Mod Parent Down! He's an imposter! by Steve+Embalmer · · Score: 0

      If you're interested in sending fan mail,

      TripMaster Monkey is really Michael Hokenson of

      1515 Crystal Lake Cir. Apt #5, Green Bay, WI 54311

      I'm sure he'd appreciate anything witty or insightful, especially if it's received early in the day (First Mail gets priority reading).

  24. Re:also interesting to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Troll? This guy has some good points...while I disagree about DES - okay, okay, we all know about the NSA and the crackable 56bit stuff...DES still helped the economy and the industry to innovate more and better solutions - what he has to say is not trollish.

  25. Eureka! by cparisi · · Score: 1

    "I have discovered Fortran!"

    1. Re:Eureka! by VAXcat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yah, deep down in the code mine, hacking away with picks and shovels. One of Watson's miners pauses, as his shovel strikes something other than dirt. Down on his knees he goes and carefully brushes the dross away from an enormous nugget of raw code ore, as big as your two fists held together! Now it looks like a shiny, irregularly shaped nugget of source, but he knows as soon as its been cut and polished and compiled and link-edited, the beauty of its FORMAT statements and its computed GOTOs will come shining through...truly a great discovery...FORTRAN was a really valuable find.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  26. only 29000? by jasongetsdown · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit surprised that 29,021 is the record. One would think there would be patent holding firms out there with more than that.

    --
    useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
    1. Re:only 29000? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Note that the article said `awarded' rather than `held'. This means that the patents were granted as a result of filing an invention with the patent office, rather than purchased.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  27. Magnetic storage? RDBMS? by digidave · · Score: 3, Funny

    Magnetic storage is a stupid invention. As if anybody would keep their information on magents when hard disks are so cheap!

    Not to mention relational databases. How important is keeping track of your family tree anyway? What's wrong with the old flow-chart-on-paper method?

    I wish IBM would invent something useful.

    --
    The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
  28. Troll? Mods, it's called a JOKE. by SuperBanana · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What is with people and the itchy "troll" triggerfingers? Call me crazy, but I haven't modded a post "troll" in years.

  29. And Yet, IBM Employee Morale At All Time Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sure, Happy Birthday-- but news has it that internal morale surveys show that IBM (U.S.A.) employees aren't happy campers. Maybe it's the memos and conference calls directing managers to identify every outsourcable position in their U.S. organization? Great lets celebrate those 29K accomplishments- but lets also ask where the research for the next 29K patents is going to be done. Any guesses???

    1. Re:And Yet, IBM Employee Morale At All Time Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess India. Very smart people, and econimical wages.

    2. Re:And Yet, IBM Employee Morale At All Time Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alabammy, the 3rd world of the USA?

  30. Happy Birthday to Me! by RKBA · · Score: 2, Funny

    What a coincidence - I'm celebrating my 60th birthday TODAY! :-)

    1. Re:Happy Birthday to Me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      happy bday

    2. Re:Happy Birthday to Me! by Chyeburashka · · Score: 1
      Mine too, although I'm only 51 today. One more year to a full deck!

      Today is also the 70th Birthday of Luciano Pavarotti.

    3. Re:Happy Birthday to Me! by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Happy birthday, consider yourself lucky! You could have been born on Sep 23 like I did...

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  31. IBM says: "We are so gay." by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 2, Interesting
  32. IBM invented the term 'PC' as well by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    IBM invented the first 'PC' called Acorn. It had a 4.77 MHz Intel 8088 microprocessor, 16kb of memory (up to 256k) one or two 160k floppy disk drives and a color monitor. The price tag started at $1,565, which is close to $4,000 in today's dollars.
    Too bad 'Top View' didn't fare as well.

    I wonder what IBM's exact response was to Bill Gates showing them Windows?
    "Thanks Bill, we'll call you, don't call us. In the mean time, have fun with your little program."

    Anyway, happy birthday IBM.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:IBM invented the term 'PC' as well by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder what IBM's exact response was to Bill Gates showing them Windows?
      "Thanks Bill, we'll call you, don't call us. In the mean time, have fun with your little program."

      Uh, Microsoft developed Windows under contract to IBM, writing to IBM's performance specifications. Windows was originally intended to be the front end for OS/2 and not a standalone product. Microsoft doesn't seem to want to emphasize that part of its history. MS also doesn't emphasize that it developed its first big success, DOS, in the same way, under contract to IBM where IBM specified the feature set and a lot of the internals. I worked on and sold PCs in the late 1980s; we had a copy of Windows v2.x on one of the machines (it was a real dog).

      Were it not for the funding from IBM's contracts and the work IBM did in design specification, the first two of Microsoft's successes would never have made it to the sales room.

      IBM invented the first 'PC' called Acorn.

      Really? I'm pretty sure that the Acorn was a different product from a different company. I'm pretty sure the IBM machine was just called the "IBM Personal Computer".

  33. Re:also interesting to note by Temkin · · Score: 5, Informative

    is their contribution to the Nazi party by selling them computers which, unless I'm mistaken



    You're mistaken. Computers were not invented until the waning days of WW2, and IBM didn't build the 701 until 1952, and the 702 in 1953. IBM's German sub-corp did sell them tabulating equipment in the 1930's, which was used at concentration camps. This arm of IBM was nationalized by the Nazi's in 1941, and IBM HQ lost control of it. Concentration camps were not illegal in time of war, the fact that they were actually extermination camps only came out later. Trying to hold IBM responsible smacks of revisionism.

    IBM has a number of firsts in human rights, including:

    The first corperation to support the United Negro College Fund in 1944.

    and

    The first US corperation to mandate equal opportunity employment in 1953.

  34. Re:also interesting to note by magarity · · Score: 1

    helped them tabulate and record the deaths and methods of death of millions of people
     
    While that's what the Nazis ended up doing with the things, I really doubt it was in the proposal design spec. Just imagine something like:
    1. Vendor's proposed system must keep track of all detainees' arrival and disposal times
    2. Proposed system must scale to millions of detainees
    3. System must work well in environment heavy with air particulates
     
    I bet it was pitched to IBM as needing a way to keep census data or somesuch. Ask the average person in the mid 1930's if they think millions of Polish and Russian Jews are going to be systematically murdered by a complex German government operation and they'll think you're nuts.

  35. Re:also interesting to note by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

    And they made up for it by producing .30 cal M1 carbines.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  36. RISC? by whh3 · · Score: 1

    I was always under the impression that David Patterson at Berkeley and John Hennessy (now President of Stanford) invented the RISC architecture and then took it to Sun? The Patterson bio linked to above seems to indicate that he did invent the RISC architecture. Huh.

    --
    remove nospam. to email!
    1. Re:RISC? by HidingMyName · · Score: 4, Informative
      I was always under the impression that David Patterson at Berkeley and John Hennessy (now President of Stanford) invented the RISC architecture and then took it to Sun? The Patterson bio linked to above seems to indicate that he did invent the RISC architecture. Huh.
      To be sure Patterson and Hennessy were influential in the development RISC architectures and certainly did a lot to increase their popularity.. However, Patterson's design became the SPARC, but Hennessy's was the MIPS, and Hennessy founded a chip building company (also called MIPS if my memory serves) based on the MIPS processor family. I think SGI bought out MIPS in the early/mid 1990's.

      While SPARC may have been the first VLSI based RISC architecture, I think the IBM 801 architecture may have preceded it. John Cocke at IBM was a seminal thinker in the area and may have developed the RISC concept and was awarded a Turing award for this work, so he might have a claim for the innovation.

    2. Re:RISC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:RISC? by TwobyTwo · · Score: 4, Informative

      > I was always under the impression that David Patterson at
      > Berkeley and John Hennessy (now President of Stanford) invented
      > the RISC architecture and then took it to Sun? The Patterson bio
      > linked to above seems to indicate that he did invent the
      > RISC architecture. Huh.

      Nope. The IBM 801 project began in 1975, and I'm fairly sure they had a machine up and running 2 or 3 years later, perhaps sooner.

      The Stanford work on MIPS didn't begin until 1981. I was in John's group at Stanford at that time, though not working on RISC, and I distinctly remember that among the factors that led to the university work on RISC was early information on the 801 that started to come out of IBM. I believe that the Berkeley work was roughly contemporary with the Stanford project, though perhaps a bit ahead. Dave Paterson's bio claims that RISC I was the first VLSI RISC, and I suspect that's true. Hard as it may be to believe now, the IBM 801 was built at a time when even a simple CPU took many chips. I recall the actual box being perhaps 2-3 feet long, and maybe 1.5 feet high.

      In any case, the IBM 801 work clearly came years earlier than either the Stanford or Bekerely projects, and I think John H. and Dave P. would be the first to acknowledge the seminal work of John Cocke and the IBM 801 team. My impression is that the respect was mutual, and that all involved agreed that both the Standford and Berkeley teams made very important later contributions.

  37. They forgot APL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM came out with the first APL interpreter back in the 1960s after Ken Iverson, the inventor of the language, started working for them. They later came out with a more advanced vaerion, APL2.

    1. Re:They forgot APL by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Back when I had to take an APL course at Rice University, circa 1972, everonye there called APL "Iverson's Folly". Between it and PL/1 I concluded I hated computers and didn't get back into them for almost 10 years.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    2. Re:They forgot APL by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      Between it and PL/1 I concluded I hated computers and didn't get back into them for almost 10 years.

      Huh. I learned APL a couple of years later, and it was what convinced me I really liked computers. Perhaps it was because the numerical analysis and statistical modeling problems I was working on were well-suited to the APL notation, but even without that: an interpreted language, symbolic debugging, garbage collection for intermediate memory use, the ability to write self-modifying code. Cool stuff, especially for the time.

      I still use an APL interpreter on Linux in preference to a calculator for many casual operations...

  38. Re:also interesting to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let me go hop in my time machine and find out what they have to say.

  39. Looking at the datastream by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

    The looking at the datastream is not possible in current theory without changing (actually determining) the state of the quanta. By looking at it, you would either alter or receive the data at the place you are looking, and the other side would receive nothing or rubbish. I do not know the complete theory, look at wikipedia.org for more info.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    1. Re:Looking at the datastream by somersault · · Score: 1

      I read the IBM article.. was wondering if splatting the particles onto a hard disk would work for recording them.. hehehe XD just think about it.. even if you destroy the original, if you managed to make a digital copy then you could reproduce it as many times as you want. There must be ways of measuring that actually record also.. hmm otherwise is it really measuring?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Looking at the datastream by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      It is determining the state, which is a no!no! in quantum mechanics. Most likely someday somebody will find a way to prevent this problem. I think it is called the Heisenberg compensator in star trek.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  40. funny destruction by jurt1235 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is the problem with quantum mechanics: It all looks terribly funny until you try to use it. The side effects are killers. But just read the IBM article which the grandfather linked too, it is pretty clear in describing it. They call it disrupting. Actually it is randomizing the quanta, which will result in a 50/50 state of the quanta in which 50% is left in original state (or ended up in original state) and the other 50% will be altered to the second state. This is pretty disruptive, effects of it are still theoretical too. I guess it will be nice shiny lights as in a transporter. The thing which they do not describe in the article though, is that you will end up with the start situation again (B&C are detangled and both in different places, thus just mirroring the descriptive image of IBM with your source and target switching from left to right), thus being able to transport the object back.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  41. 57 years late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re: IBM inventions and discoveries include ... magnetic storage (1955)

    'Fraid not. "Valdemar Poulsen, today acknowledged as the father of magnetic recording, demonstrated his magnetic wire recorder in 1898" - a history of video. Has the poster considered a job at the patent office?

    1. Re:57 years late by nogginthenog · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure Turing's first computers at Manchester University had magnetic storage too, and that would pre-date 1955 (possibly the Enigma cracking machines had magnetic storage too?)

    2. Re:57 years late by SteveAstro · · Score: 1

      Manchester University's "Baby" machine, with Cathode ray tube data storage (The William's Tube, built by Tom Kilburn and Freddy Williams was 1948. This was the first stored program computer that could modify its own code.

      Steve

  42. Transport a person by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

    Yes, people do not seem to want to have copies of themselves running around (by clone or copy), since this does not add up with creationism or god like figures. So this is pretty much OK with religion I would say: No copy, you just quantumshifted a few miles. It really sucks though if not enough B/C pair quanta are available, you will be completely transported (Blue screen of death: Quanta buffer overflow, not enough quanta available, please restart your system or vulcan neck pinch to continu). See it like this: Go bungy(?) jumping and lie about your weight (give a to low number). It will give you a headache or worse. In this case you will end up loosing some unknown parts. If lucky some fat, it not so lucky a random useful part. Most likely you will arrive in an undetermined state (ie a blob, watch enough star trek and it will get too you (-: )

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  43. IBM invented by unknownideal · · Score: 1

    Al Gore.

  44. Re:Welcome! by DataCannibal · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our old patent wielding overlords

    --
    No but, yeah but, no but...
  45. The Research is being done ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... in Yorktown Heights, NY; Hawthorne, NY; San Jose, CA; Austin, TX; Beijing; Haifa; Tokyo; Zurich; Delhi and Bangalore.

    http://www.research.ibm.com/worldwide/

    Oh, yes, let's not forget the patents from the product development teams in NY, NC, FL, MA, MN, TX, CA, Ontario, Japan, China, India, Ireland, UK, France, Germany ...

    And the patents from the services organization worldwide.

    The U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on smart people with good ideas and the ability to work on technology. Research and development with a global reach is a very good thing.

    IBM didn't create the economic and political conditions that make outsourcing possible, and IBM can't turn back the clock. Governments probably can't turn back the clock, either.

    1. Re:The Research is being done ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point entirely. The point is that the US is AS GOOD AS any of those other places. Its not like Indians in India are any better than all the diverse peoples living in the US and working in tech. The ONLY measure by which Indians in India are better than US resources is cost. IBM is saying to its people, we don't value you as humans. We don't value the communitites or the country that made IBM possible in the first place. The only thing IBM values is cost and profiting the smallest group at the corporation's top.

    2. Re:The Research is being done ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm not missing the point. But thanks for guessing about me.

      Of all the many places I've worked -- including a Big Six consulting firm, manufacturing, systems integrators, and IBM -- IBM is head and shoulders above the others in terms of the way it treats it people.

      Does that mean that IBM can offer lifetime employment? Nope, it tried that and almost went broke a bit more than a decade ago.

      Does it mean that IBM can insulate anyone from the reality you point out -- that people of equal capability are available overseas for lower cost? No. Everywhere from the shelves of Wal-Mart to the board room, the people who buy want the greatest value for their transaction without regard to the nations providing resources or labor. Even the DoD doesn't even sound the call to "Buy American" anymore.

      And huge chunks of IBM's business are extremely sensitive to the cost of labor. That's why IBM is working to move its services capability farther up the food chain, so it can differentiate on value, not price. That's why it's accepting the commoditization of parts of its product portfolio, and why it's embraced open source.

      IBM executives know that in order to grow, they need to find new ways to bring value to customers. That requires investment. In turn, that requires profitable operations. Which leads to controlling costs and expenses, and managing the portfolio of businesses that IBM operates.

      Is the services business hard? Yes. That's why Big 8^h6^h5^h4 firms tend to have an up-or-out mentality. You hire young folks who are willing to bill 2000+ hours a year and live in hotels, and some of them claw their way into a partnership and big bucks. Others leave. The same is true for law firms.

      Have you ever worked for a defense contractor, and shown up on the Monday following contract termination due to budget cuts? Tammy Wynette would spell it L-A-Y-O-F-F-S.

      I'm sorry, but IBM puts far more than lip service into being a good corporate citizen in the community, the U.S., and world. But it's still a _corporate_ citizen, not philanthropist.

      Do the top execs get paid well? Yes. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/51143/00011 0465905009753/a05-4087_2def14a.htm#ReportOnExecuti veCompensation_162410

      But are they strip-mining the company to line their own pockets? No. In fact, executive compensation is tied to performance, which is shown in the split between salary and bonus. You can make arguments about the overall evil of executive compensation, but the numbers there aren't out-of-line for a profitable $90-billion business.

      Unlike most places, IBM's stock option program is premium priced (e.g. the options are granted at 10% above the market price, meaning the price has to increase more than 10% for the execs to make a dime); most firms grant options at-the-money.

      In fact, IBM requires its top executives to own stock (not options) worth 3-7x their annual base salary (13x for Sam), to tie their success to IBM's sustained growth.

    3. Re:The Research is being done ... by jimkski · · Score: 1

      Guessing about you? I have no idea what that means.

      So your point is, its a big bad world, get over it. Fine. My point is that organizations need to start looking beyond profit and start seeing their impact on the world. Turning a blind eye to the environmental and human rights abuses in China to make a quick buck does not a better world make. The need to recognize that they need to invest back in the communities that allowed them to flurish. Could IBM have come up in the horribly corrupt, bribery driven Indian business environment? Could IBM have been so dynamic in the state controlled industrial complex of communist China? In a word, no.

      In total does IBM actually owe the US anything? You're right it doesn't. It shouldn't expect anything either. The government uses our tax money to fund research that often ends up growing into the inventions that make corporations rich. From now on, we ought to be sure that the tax payer's investment in fundamental research shows us some dividneds, maybe through taking a direct percentage of the gross on any sales of products using that technology. Clearly, in the new world model those investments aren't going to pay off in the form of jobs. And to be honest, I don't give a fuck about the benefit of a cheap Chinese electronic product as a return for all that outsourcing. Give me a real cash return on my investment via taxes in the technologies that we're just giving away today.

      --
      yea i stole your sig- whats the big deal, it sucked anyway.
  46. Innovation by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

    See, when Microsoft talks about innovation, this is exactly what they want to be seen like. Real innovation, like IBM Research, not the vaporware.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  47. That was Unisys by sconeu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unisys (previously Sperry and Burroughs) were the owners of the infamous LZW patent, not IBM.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:That was Unisys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both statements are true. Actually teh LZW patent was issued TWICE, first to Unisys and two years later to IBM. If you need a hint that there is something wrong with patents on mathematic theorems and methods, here you have it.

    2. Re:That was Unisys by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I knew someone would fall into this trap.

      And I'm not supprised that someone decided your post was "informative".

      The joke on the patents system is that both Unisys and IBM owned a patent on LZW.

      Kind of makes you wonder why anyone thought either one of them was valid, doesn't it.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  48. you forgot one by tsmithnj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The first corperation to support the United Negro College Fund in 1944.

    and

    The first US corperation to mandate equal opportunity employment in 1953.

    AND

    first company not to genetically discriminate

  49. Let's Not Forget the Cash Register! by WebbedWell · · Score: 1

    Yeah! There's an invention that all businesses can celebrate! Too bad for the guy who was making a killing off of selling pans to collect funds! There is still good money for those people who know how to fix very old cash registers, as they add character to certain businesses.

  50. ibm's latest discovery by unk1911 · · Score: 2, Funny

    (2003ish): IBM discovers cheap labor in India/Bangalore and starts slashing jobs in the US in small but consistent increments over a prolonged time...

    --
    http://unk1911.blogspot.com/

  51. RIP BTL by rkhalloran · · Score: 2

    This was probably the single biggest casualty of the Bell System breakup. First The Labs had Bellcore sheared off to support the RBOCs, then Lucent/Avaya took a lot of the hardware research. The market pressure that had been absent in the monopoly days burned off a lot of the pure research work as being too blue-sky. Having grown up in the Holmdel NJ area in the 60's & 70's, then getting to work in the central NJ campus in the late 80's just post-breakup, I could see the decline starting. Now the Holmdel facility is on the block. I don't think we'd have seen UNIX or C in the post-monopoly environment. Sic transit...

    1. Re:RIP BTL by DrLudicrous · · Score: 1

      It's truly sad. But getting back to the parent topic, IBM is to be commended for keeping on with basic, fundamental research at its labs. The same can not be said for most mega-corporations, but IBM is doing so, creating competition between industry, academica, and the government labs. I still hope that one day Bell Labs will be cut away from Lucent and made into its own entity, and get contracted to do market-targeted research, and then use the profits to fund basic reasearch that it can turn into patents for further income in the long term.

  52. Re:also interesting to note by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    so i guess your birthday is the celebration of everytime you shat your pants as a child?

    pretty weird and negative way to look at the world my friend. there are no innocents...

    --

    -

  53. Re:also interesting to note by omniview2 · · Score: 0

    IBM indeed had an enormous contribution to the Holocaust through its Hollerith tabulating machines. Author Edwin Black makes a damning case against IBM in his book "IBM and the Holocaust". During the WW2 era, IBM existed by and for providing Nazi Germany with the technology required by the logistical nightmare that was the "Final Solution".

    http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

    That said . . . Thank you, IBM for every thing else.

    --
    Err . . . oh forget it . . .
  54. Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy. by SteveAstro · · Score: 2, Informative

    IBM labs in Switzerland invented Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy too.

    The inventors, Binnig and Rohrer got the Nobel prize for physics in 1986

    Steve

  55. patents per employee by slothman32 · · Score: 1

    It talks about 29021 patents. Beside the fact that one, a while ago since it is changing, of the heights of Everest was 29,028 feet, I wonder what that is in PPE, patents per employee. For a big company more patents doesn't mean as much when thought of this way.

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. Re:also interesting to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't consider scholarships that discriminate on the basis of race to be a good thing or hardly indicitative of an attitude of "equality". This is just typical bigoted race pandering.

    There may be plenty of poor blacks out there that could use a leg up on an education but this attitude discriminates against others, including whites, who often find themselves in the same economic and social situations but don't get the same cheering economic support becuase it is not as politically rewarding to help poor whites.

  58. Maybe not so bleak by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    University CS departments have always done OS and language research (I'm thinking specifically of Bertrand Meyer and Eiffel), so something like Unix or C would likely evolved. Remember AT&T was under a consent decree not to sell computer software, so they essentially gave Unix away to universities for the trivial cost of duplicating some mag tapes and manuals.

    In general, though, I agree that the current competetive environment is anti-research. If you want to cut costs, those line items that are risky and have a long timeline are vulnerable.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  59. recent technical inventions? by snitmo · · Score: 1
    This is not a flamebait. A real question.

    Have there been any notable and technical inventions from IBM Research lately (say last 5 to 10 years)? The article mentions the lab's focus has been shifting.

    the company's push toward services and software has prompted it to dedicate more of its laboratories toward solving business process problems

    I have not seen anything as significant as RDB or Fortran in the last 10 years from the lab.

    Generally speaking, I feel that computer science research from academia (research labs, universities) isn't as productive as it used to be. I can't recall any ground breaking work from academia recently (after Internet, I guess). Does this mean computer science research has matured and has reached a point where most of the progress is now made in development by corporation rather than academic research? Or I just do not know about the exciting research projects? Or, as the article suggests, most academic inventions are done outside of the US?

    Please enlighten me.

    1. Re:recent technical inventions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Please enlighten me.

      Sure! My pleasure!

      The reason there is nothing new coming out of most labs is because most of them are using M$ windoze...zzzz....

      All the innovative stuff is coming out of open source labs, etc. :-)

    2. Re:recent technical inventions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, IBM founded Eclipse, and release tons of open source. In fact, check out the /. headlines and see that they just release part of Rational to open source.

  60. The Winchester Disk Drive by K-Man · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know what the name "Winchester" refers to in this case?

    My father worked on this product in the late 60's and beyond, but I never figured out if they were referring to the Mystery House, the boulevard, or the repeating rifle (all from the same family). My guess was that the Mystery House was chosen as a precursor to San Jose Building 5 :-).

    --
    ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
    1. Re:The Winchester Disk Drive by Detritus · · Score: 1

      One of the stories that I've heard is that it refers to the hardware configuration of the first drive, which had 30 MB fixed disk and 30 MB removable disk, 30-30, like the popular cartridge for the Winchester repeating rifle.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:The Winchester Disk Drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a hard drive you young whipper snapper....

      From Wiki:

      In 1973, IBM introduced the 3340 "Winchester" disk system (the 30MB + 30 millisecond access time led the project to be named after the Winchester 30-30 rifle), the first to use a sealed head/disk assembly (HDA). Almost all modern disk drives now use this technology, and the term "Winchester" became a common description for all hard disks, though generally falling out of use during the 1990s.

    3. Re:The Winchester Disk Drive by rkww · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It may be connected with with IBM Hursley, their UK laboratories in Winchester, England, which did some of the original development of disk drives. IBM has a review and discussionof disk 'file' innovation in the 25 years up to 1981 which describes the Winchester technology in some detail, but doesn't seem to identify where the work was carried out.

  61. Get to work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IBM has received 29,021 patents--more than any other company or individual in the world.

    Whats wrong with you people?!?!?

  62. 30/30 Winchester by juggledean · · Score: 1


    It was named after the rifle or more likely the cartridge. The hard drive had two 30 MB spindles. The cartridge was 0.30 inches in diameter and contained the equivalent of 30 grains of smokeless powder.

  63. Don't forget IBM helping out the Nazi's in WW2.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For info on how IBM aided the Nazi's check out:

    http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

    They have much to be proud of!

  64. Hollerith (punch card) readers (not computers) by HBI · · Score: 1

    There was a hatchet job book on this a few years back, trying to imply IBM was somehow responsible for the Holocaust. Bottom line, IBM sold them to the German government for census data initially. Once they were in German hands, they were reconfigured for other purposes by employees of IBM's German subsidiary.

    One could complain about the continued sale when it was pretty obvious (from our viewpoint) that the machines were being used for ill purposes, but explain to me just how IBM was going to approach that issue given the fact that they had no firm proof of anything? Particularly since the employees doing the retrofitting for concentration camp records were German citizens who were under penalty of imprisonment in the same camps if they failed to do their patriotic duty.

    Bottom line, it was impossible to be a rational businessman and do anything about the Nazis from the standpoint of a commercial supplier.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  65. And is life all that much better? by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Has IBM's 2500-patent-per-year pace of carving out territory in innovation-space really done the world that much good?

  66. Re:Happy Birthday to Me! MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone mod the parent up +1 informative. It's the least we can do on his big day.

  67. Real shame by solomonrex · · Score: 1

    I think we should stop and reflect how much more money Microsoft has than IBM and they've done far too little with it. They have a similar monopoly compared to Bell and IBM and yet research hasn't benefited nearly as much.

  68. From the probability department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent post is likely to be true within 60 years depending on the definition of "planet" (e.g. Kupier Belt objects, Oort cloud, Asteroid belt etc.).

  69. That's NCR too, and globalization ruined both. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    I believe you forgot the near-dead, services based sellout known as National Cash Register. They only share small amounts of history in the early times of the cash register. After that, they're mostly separate. Now, they both do their own types, but on a much lesser scale than known previously - current NCR machines are just NCR labeled hardware with NT and BassPoiNT loaded in.

    As for both IBM/NCR's R&D divisions, they are probably best stated as standstill due to "globalization". The kind that sells off anything, even land to land grab happy entities that overstate their moral character, or moves jobs (uncompetitively) to places far enough out of the US to keep them well out of reach of any interested US citizen willing to rightfully take back his job in the "not-so-free market".

    Maybe the human factor might need to be put back in economics before a C-level be publicly executed (and with noone to care to act as a witness) to return the lack of their organization's humanity in kind.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  70. Re:also interesting to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those punch cards were all manufactured by IBM NY. Also, though the German branch of IBM was nationalized this was largly for show and in fact Thomas J. Watson remained in control of the company as well as in control of the cards that were necessary for the operation of the Nazi state. At any point he could have stopped the shipment of cards to Germany and within days the infrustructure would have ground to a halt.
    see "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black for all the gory details

  71. Re:also interesting to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you seem to believe everything you read without even attempting critical thinking, falling into that oh-so-known fashionable trap of letting others do the supposedly critical thinking for you.

    Wise up, do you really think a lack of calculating/business equipment (not even computers) of any kind would have stopped the Nazi genocide of jews and other so-called "sub-humans"? Did luddite Khmer Rouge use anything but raw violence?

    If you have any clue about humanity at all you should know we are extremely creative at killing, blaming IBM for that fact as well as the evil in human hearts is staggeringly naive.

    I bet you think Saddam was a nice misunderstood good guy as well and if you take offence at that well GOOD because the level of reflection in your post is at that level. Be ashamed of yourself and start using your brain for real.

  72. Absolutely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PhD's are a dime a dozen. There have only been a few hundred IBM Fellows in the world, ever. Even IBM's "Distinguished Engineer" label should mean a lot more than a PhD. I've met a handful of DE's and they were all amazing (including the two that work in my building).

  73. Let's not forget markup languages by dwalsh · · Score: 2, Informative

    GML was invented in IBM in 1969. Here is a history.

    It begat SGML in the 80s, which begat XML in the late '90s. When people discuss who invented XML, I roll my eyes, because XML and SGML are standardisations by comittees - the invention occured with GML.

    Standardised versions of HTML were SGML applications and now HTML is an XML application (XHTML), so the significance of GML is probably as great as any of the inventions listed.

    --
    ${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
  74. DOS by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

    All this and they couldn't make their own operating system for the PC.

  75. IBM = nazi? by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

    wasn't it IBM that was supplying the Nazi's with devices to sort the jews before they were executed? so you want to celebrate what again?

  76. Re:also interesting to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Edwin, is that you? That website is the most half-assed, fanciful, and clearly distorted sales pitch I've seen since the last time I skimmed my "Caught Spam" folder-- I love the way the "Hollerith Denial" and "IBM Response" pages are "Under construction." Edwin Black is also the talentless hack who brought us the unforgettable novel "Format C:", in which

            The richest man on earth, who owns the biggest computer company in the world, based in Seattle, controls all computers everywhere and uses a computer crisis to launch the ultimate domination of mankind resulting in the final battle between good and evil fought at Armageddon at the actual site in Israel.[http://www.formatnovel.com/%5D

    What a pud. It's too bad that IBM Research has done so much to make it easy for toolbags like Edwin Black get their money-grubbing paws on a keyboard and word processor, when society would clearly be better off keeping them in the mindless manual labor to which they're better suited.