The point that IBM is interested in profit is moot. My point was that IBM still actively pursues pure research whereas Google does not.
The reason IBM Research remains today is that they were able to adapt and find a balance between profitability and pure research. My grip is that Google is being portrayed as the last keeper of this "dead" field and it is my belief that they are most certainly not.
IBM Research was key in the development of the PC, relational databases, datamining, and countless other fields. One of the reasons IBM got out of the harddrive business was because research had progress so fast that noone was using it. Practically none of the harddrive businesses are profitable, except maybe Hitachi.
However, IBM still is doing harddrive research, one major is example is the super dense stamp sized 1 GB harddrives that was mentioned here at some point. I don't think it's too much to ask to give IBM Research at nod for actually performing Research!
Yeah, why does IBM get the shaft. I am working at that very site as an intern in datamining. There are quite a bit chemists and physicists there that do pure research still. While there are groups focused on product deployment, IBM still has the resources to do research(otherwise I wouldn't be interested). And what's with everyone singing Google's praises? They're just trying to find the next product, not entirely new fields that are only possible through research. I read this article recently from IBM's Think magazine from 1936, it was by the director of Research at GM. It was eery how relevant it was if you just replaced the technologies mentioned. The basic jist was that it made the writer mad when people said research wasn't necessary and was just looking at a way to replace people with technology. He said that this was ridiculous because of the entirely new industries that were created because of research(telegram, telephone, cars). He also mentioned that people who say that everything has been invented, know that it's been said before, but this time is different. I just think that part is great because it was 1936. To me it seems like IBM is one of the few major corporations looking ahead further than the current quarter's earnings.
This could be a redundant post, but I can't be bothered to check. I imagine Apple would like to delay the release of Tiger as little as possible and so maybe Tiger figures Apple will be more likely to settle quickly giving them a fat payday.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally Krypton has exploded, soon enough Superman should arrive.
I hope the DVDs self-destruct in a Mission Possible way.
i like how spam was the first post
The point that IBM is interested in profit is moot. My point was that IBM still actively pursues pure research whereas Google does not.
The reason IBM Research remains today is that they were able to adapt and find a balance between profitability and pure research. My grip is that Google is being portrayed as the last keeper of this "dead" field and it is my belief that they are most certainly not.
IBM Research was key in the development of the PC, relational databases, datamining, and countless other fields. One of the reasons IBM got out of the harddrive business was because research had progress so fast that noone was using it. Practically none of the harddrive businesses are profitable, except maybe Hitachi.
However, IBM still is doing harddrive research, one major is example is the super dense stamp sized 1 GB harddrives that was mentioned here at some point. I don't think it's too much to ask to give IBM Research at nod for actually performing Research!
Yeah, why does IBM get the shaft. I am working at that very site as an intern in datamining. There are quite a bit chemists and physicists there that do pure research still. While there are groups focused on product deployment, IBM still has the resources to do research(otherwise I wouldn't be interested). And what's with everyone singing Google's praises? They're just trying to find the next product, not entirely new fields that are only possible through research. I read this article recently from IBM's Think magazine from 1936, it was by the director of Research at GM. It was eery how relevant it was if you just replaced the technologies mentioned. The basic jist was that it made the writer mad when people said research wasn't necessary and was just looking at a way to replace people with technology. He said that this was ridiculous because of the entirely new industries that were created because of research(telegram, telephone, cars). He also mentioned that people who say that everything has been invented, know that it's been said before, but this time is different. I just think that part is great because it was 1936. To me it seems like IBM is one of the few major corporations looking ahead further than the current quarter's earnings.
This could be a redundant post, but I can't be bothered to check. I imagine Apple would like to delay the release of Tiger as little as possible and so maybe Tiger figures Apple will be more likely to settle quickly giving them a fat payday.
Was that joke ever funny?