Enron was named "America's Most Innovative Company" by Fortune for six consecutive years, from 1996 to 2001. It was on the Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work for in America" list in 2000, and had offices that were stunning in their opulence. Enron was hailed by many, including labor and the workforce, as an overall great company, praised for its large long-term pensions, benefits for its workers and extremely effective management until its exposure in corporate fraud.
In early 2001 they were "America's Most Innovative Company" with over $100 billion in revenue. By Dec 2nd 2001, they were completely gone (not just in bankruptcy).
By the standard we use to calculate NASA's return on investment, the NSF has given us many projects, including:
THE INTERNET While it was originally run by DARPA, NSF became involved by the late 70s, and by the mid-80s was the primary financial support for the system. Without the NSF, the internet may have died before it got anywhere.
This is more involvement than NASA has with many of the technologies proponents claim credit for.
So following the same logic, the NSF has repaid itself many many many times over, at a multiple much higher than NASA has managed to accomplish.
I'm waiting for you to document the return on $150B spent on NSF in a comparable period, say 1993-2002 with 10 years to show for it, compared to NASA's 1961-1970 ROI by 1980.
That's an interesting test. So you want to cherry pick NASA's time period? Why not compare it for the same period as the NSF. NASA's funding for 1993-2202 was more than enough for them to show incredible advances in a wide range of areas. So where are those advancements?
Also, $150 billion is a lot of money. NASA has received many times that amount. I do not think the NSF has received that amount in its ENTIRE HISTORY.
You do have to give him credit for an interesting idea. If NASA really has invented so much that has benefited society, then IF they had patents, they would be able to fund a moon base or whatever.
IF research agencies did have patents.. it would ensure that we never shot ourselves in the foot by cutting their budget. Not only could we clearly point to their earnings from patents to justify their benefits to society, the agency would be able to fund itself even if it wasn't Congress' pet project of the week.
No kidding. Remember the/. interview with MIT fusion researchers? They said we are about $80 billion away. So that's quite a margin of error if you budget 150b.
ITER cost 17 billion. We're going to wait a decade for work to complete on it.
And that trip to the moon cost $150 billion (in 2010 dollars). OF COURSE it brought about new discoveries, inventions, tools, etc-- IT WAS $150 BILLION! Saying that we discovered new things in the process of spending that much money does not mean we should automatically do it again.
If our true motivation for a trip to the moon is to develop new things, then we have to ask: does spending that money on a trip to the moon result in more inventions than spending it on the National Institutes of Health? or the National Science Foundation? or the Department of Energy?
The NSF got $7 billion last year... the Dept of Energy got 24 billion.. and NASA got 18 billion (+ we spent another 8 billion on military space funding (GPS, etc)).
They may not be a startup, but 60 million in REVENUE is not a large company. They have a slight loss each quarter, and have $23 million in total equity.
They're competing against Micron - 8.4 billion in revenue & 26,000 employees Kingston - 6.5 billion in revenue & 4500 employees Samsung - 250 billion in revenue & 344,000 employees
Netlist was founded in 2000 and had revenues of $14 million last quarter.
They are not (as far as I can tell) a patent troll.. they design and manufacture memory subsystems.
JDEC made sure all of the big players IP was properly licensed, but left out Netlist's patent. How do we know the big players weren't just trying to screw them over?
Having developed software for nearly fifteen years, I remember the dark days before testing was all the rage
Umm.. wtf are you talking about? Extreme Programming is 13 years old, and it wasn't first. Even the waterfall model has testing, and it's 40 years old:
1. Requirements specification 2. Design 3. Construction (AKA implementation or coding) 4. Integration 5. Testing and debugging (AKA Validation) 6. Installation 7. Maintenance
Just because you didn't know how to test your software back then doesn't mean testing didn't exist.
Itanium IS dead. HP pays Intel to continue producing it, but HP is virtually the only customer for it.
This is why Oracle is being sued. They agreed to support their DB on Itanium so long as Intel produced it... so HP pays Intel to continue producing it, and that forces Oracle to continue supporting it. In other words, if it weren't for HP's payments, Oracle would have been able to drop support for it years ago. HP is trying to do an end-run around the EOL in their contract.
While I'm sure saying it was secret makes the story more exciting.. let's try to stick with things that are true. Here's an article from a year ago. The Chinese real-estate developer arranged a partnership between the two cities. Halstatt's Mayor knew of the development. That's the opposite of a secret.
And if you think this is for some sinister purpose:
This isn't the first time a Chinese firm has used a European place as inspiration. The Chinese city of Anting, some 30 kilometers from Shanghai, created a district designed to accommodate 20,000 residents called "German Town Anting." Modelled after a typical mid-size German city by architecture firm Albert Speer & Partner, it includes Bauhaus style architecture and a fountain with statues of Goethe and Schiller.
In 2005 Chengdu British Town was modelled on the English town of Dorchester. One year later Thames Town was finished near Shanghai, complete with a 66-meter tall church that bears a striking resemblance to a cathedral in Bristol. Also near Shanghai are mini versions of Barcelona, Venice and the Scandinavian-inspired Nordic Town. The architectural plagiarisms are popular destinations among middle-class Chinese, even serving as backdrops for wedding photos.
Plugins make vulnerabilities go away? I think I've heard everything now.
Which plugin makes the Firefox buffer overflows go away? The drag-and-drop XSS vulnerability? The out-of-bound memory access? The "code installation by holding down enter"? Unsafe library loading? Using memory after calling free in the html parser? libpng buffer overflow?
Please, please tell me how a plugin fixes any of those. Because this is obviously revolutionary security technology that everyone should know about.
Either that, or you really don't know what you're talking about and haven't seen the list of vulnerabilities in 3.6.
who modded this troll? Firefox does NOT have sandboxing (chrome and ie do). Adobe had to write their own sandbox for their plugin for firefox. 3.6 DOES have unfixed vulnerabilities. 3.6 IS no longer supported. and IE9 is better because it is still supported.
Google Shopping will launch this summer with new features designed to make shopping even more intuitive, beautiful, and useful. With this launch, Google Product Search will be discontinued.
This is just what google needs: the 3rd (4th?) change to their upload format.
Not to mention, it's so little used, you can almost ignore it without affecting your sales.
Are you Zuck? Did you create Facebook? Is forming your salary expectations by how much was made during a dotcom boom (current or previous) really reasonable?
Slashdot Mirror
Exaggerate much? It took me all of 5 minutes for Enron to pop into mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron
Enron was named "America's Most Innovative Company" by Fortune for six consecutive years, from 1996 to 2001. It was on the Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work for in America" list in 2000, and had offices that were stunning in their opulence. Enron was hailed by many, including labor and the workforce, as an overall great company, praised for its large long-term pensions, benefits for its workers and extremely effective management until its exposure in corporate fraud.
In early 2001 they were "America's Most Innovative Company" with over $100 billion in revenue. By Dec 2nd 2001, they were completely gone (not just in bankruptcy).
so the spending you cite is inaccurate.
The figures from the ESA for spending by the ESA are inaccurate?!?
By the standard we use to calculate NASA's return on investment, the NSF has given us many projects, including:
THE INTERNET
While it was originally run by DARPA, NSF became involved by the late 70s, and by the mid-80s was the primary financial support for the system. Without the NSF, the internet may have died before it got anywhere.
This is more involvement than NASA has with many of the technologies proponents claim credit for.
So following the same logic, the NSF has repaid itself many many many times over, at a multiple much higher than NASA has managed to accomplish.
I'm waiting for you to document the return on $150B spent on NSF in a comparable period, say 1993-2002 with 10 years to show for it, compared to NASA's 1961-1970 ROI by 1980.
That's an interesting test. So you want to cherry pick NASA's time period? Why not compare it for the same period as the NSF. NASA's funding for 1993-2202 was more than enough for them to show incredible advances in a wide range of areas. So where are those advancements?
Also, $150 billion is a lot of money. NASA has received many times that amount. I do not think the NSF has received that amount in its ENTIRE HISTORY.
You do have to give him credit for an interesting idea. If NASA really has invented so much that has benefited society, then IF they had patents, they would be able to fund a moon base or whatever.
IF research agencies did have patents.. it would ensure that we never shot ourselves in the foot by cutting their budget. Not only could we clearly point to their earnings from patents to justify their benefits to society, the agency would be able to fund itself even if it wasn't Congress' pet project of the week.
No kidding. Remember the /. interview with MIT fusion researchers? They said we are about $80 billion away. So that's quite a margin of error if you budget 150b.
ITER cost 17 billion. We're going to wait a decade for work to complete on it.
It's less than 1 year of NASA's budget.
All that means is that we should spend $150B again on space R&D, and on NSF R&D
If we have $300 billion, why should we spend half of it on a LESS productive program?
the Dept of Energy got 24 billion
That's for the entire DoE.. DARPA received $3 billion
And that trip to the moon cost $150 billion (in 2010 dollars). OF COURSE it brought about new discoveries, inventions, tools, etc-- IT WAS $150 BILLION! Saying that we discovered new things in the process of spending that much money does not mean we should automatically do it again.
If our true motivation for a trip to the moon is to develop new things, then we have to ask: does spending that money on a trip to the moon result in more inventions than spending it on the National Institutes of Health? or the National Science Foundation? or the Department of Energy?
The NSF got $7 billion last year... the Dept of Energy got 24 billion.. and NASA got 18 billion (+ we spent another 8 billion on military space funding (GPS, etc)).
Have you seen the list of discoveries just by the NSF? Here's a short list of 587 recent discoveries. There's more for computing, engineering, math, nanoscience, physics:
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/index.jsp?prio_area=5
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/index.jsp?prio_area=8
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/index.jsp?prio_area=9
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/index.jsp?prio_area=10
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/index.jsp?prio_area=11
and that's what they did with $7 BILLION!
The US is spending 25.7 billion (17.7 billion NASA, 8 billion for the military (GPS, etc)) on space in 2012
ESA spent 4 billion Euros (about $5 billion)... a total of 413 million EU on human space flight.
There's a lot of talk in the paper about "global" exploration of the moon. I can only assume that means they don't plan on increasing that.
They may not be a startup, but 60 million in REVENUE is not a large company. They have a slight loss each quarter, and have $23 million in total equity.
They're competing against
Micron - 8.4 billion in revenue & 26,000 employees
Kingston - 6.5 billion in revenue & 4500 employees
Samsung - 250 billion in revenue & 344,000 employees
They ARE a small company in their industry.
Netlist was founded in 2000 and had revenues of $14 million last quarter.
They are not (as far as I can tell) a patent troll.. they design and manufacture memory subsystems.
JDEC made sure all of the big players IP was properly licensed, but left out Netlist's patent. How do we know the big players weren't just trying to screw them over?
http://www.netlist.com/about-netlist/history/
http://www.netlist.com/about-netlist/quality-and-manufacturing/
http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=54253&GoTopage=1&Category=1629&BzID=1941
Wait.. "comprehensive" is 3 applications + java platform + oracle DB? I don't think that word means what Ellison thinks it means.
Having developed software for nearly fifteen years, I remember the dark days before testing was all the rage
Umm.. wtf are you talking about? Extreme Programming is 13 years old, and it wasn't first. Even the waterfall model has testing, and it's 40 years old:
1. Requirements specification
2. Design
3. Construction (AKA implementation or coding)
4. Integration
5. Testing and debugging (AKA Validation)
6. Installation
7. Maintenance
Just because you didn't know how to test your software back then doesn't mean testing didn't exist.
Itanium IS dead. HP pays Intel to continue producing it, but HP is virtually the only customer for it.
This is why Oracle is being sued. They agreed to support their DB on Itanium so long as Intel produced it... so HP pays Intel to continue producing it, and that forces Oracle to continue supporting it. In other words, if it weren't for HP's payments, Oracle would have been able to drop support for it years ago. HP is trying to do an end-run around the EOL in their contract.
Umm.. So what? Are you saying that when I go to the casino in vegas that looks like an egyptian pyramid, Egypt deserves some kind of cut?
While I'm sure saying it was secret makes the story more exciting.. let's try to stick with things that are true. Here's an article from a year ago. The Chinese real-estate developer arranged a partnership between the two cities. Halstatt's Mayor knew of the development. That's the opposite of a secret.
And if you think this is for some sinister purpose:
This isn't the first time a Chinese firm has used a European place as inspiration. The Chinese city of Anting, some 30 kilometers from Shanghai, created a district designed to accommodate 20,000 residents called "German Town Anting." Modelled after a typical mid-size German city by architecture firm Albert Speer & Partner, it includes Bauhaus style architecture and a fountain with statues of Goethe and Schiller.
In 2005 Chengdu British Town was modelled on the English town of Dorchester. One year later Thames Town was finished near Shanghai, complete with a 66-meter tall church that bears a striking resemblance to a cathedral in Bristol. Also near Shanghai are mini versions of Barcelona, Venice and the Scandinavian-inspired Nordic Town. The architectural plagiarisms are popular destinations among middle-class Chinese, even serving as backdrops for wedding photos.
That's right: it's for tourism.
Plugins make vulnerabilities go away? I think I've heard everything now.
Which plugin makes the Firefox buffer overflows go away? The drag-and-drop XSS vulnerability? The out-of-bound memory access? The "code installation by holding down enter"? Unsafe library loading? Using memory after calling free in the html parser? libpng buffer overflow?
Please, please tell me how a plugin fixes any of those. Because this is obviously revolutionary security technology that everyone should know about.
Either that, or you really don't know what you're talking about and haven't seen the list of vulnerabilities in 3.6.
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox36.html
who modded this troll? Firefox does NOT have sandboxing (chrome and ie do). Adobe had to write their own sandbox for their plugin for firefox. 3.6 DOES have unfixed vulnerabilities. 3.6 IS no longer supported. and IE9 is better because it is still supported.
TROLL != I DISAGREE
*sigh* I don't understand these bus analogies. Can someone please give me a car analogy instead?
Changing their address to google.google is a bit redundant.
well, yes,.. that would be stupid. But luckily there are other words in the dictionary
search.google
docs.google
shopping.google
mail.google
images.google
Mod parent up. First post that doesn't suggest she make a radical career change to IT.
I know a couple of people with Math degrees working at insurance companies.
Google Shopping will launch this summer with new features designed to make shopping even more intuitive, beautiful, and useful. With this launch, Google Product Search will be discontinued.
This is just what google needs: the 3rd (4th?) change to their upload format.
Not to mention, it's so little used, you can almost ignore it without affecting your sales.
Good job Google
Grandparent post:
For example, say you get an email from some advertiser... and you even have your mail viewer set to not download images
Which was the point I was addressing.
So the default does not matter. Only what the setting actually does (images vs all content).
Are you Zuck? Did you create Facebook? Is forming your salary expectations by how much was made during a dotcom boom (current or previous) really reasonable?