5 ms·

That's a great advertisement. It's too bad that groups like Westinghouse's R&D division and Bell Labs aren't around anymore. Are there any real corporate resear

That's a great advertisement. It's too bad that groups like Westinghouse's R&D division and Bell Labs aren't around anymore. Are there any real corporate research groups doing basic research anymore?

vecter 16y ago
Microsoft Research and AT&T Labs are still doing some fundamental stuff.
wizawuza 16y ago
ibm's watson is still up to no good
derefr 16y ago
There are a few, but I would say that most basic research these days is academic. However, today's Universities are similar enough to corporations that their professors and grad students can be considered to be "corporate research groups." If we kill the Java school (or more generally "University is knowledge worker trade-school") mentality, Universities will stop being able to signal their value through "owning" large numbers of researchers, and all the demand for innovation will shift back to corporations.
- wisty 16y ago
  OK, I have to disagree, simply because I think it's that's a wonderful argument and HN bans empty ++ posts. Companies that do basic research are a different kettle of fish. They make money on breakthroughs and innovation. Java schools make money on students, so the thinking is an entirely different kind - formalizing existing knowledge (so the students can study something more "academic"). Sure, you can formalize code as category theory, algebra, sets, and so on, but it's not exactly an out-of-box breakthrough. Also, the type of researchers you get are excellent students, not engineers who made innovations in the field and got kicked up to the lab.
  - derefr 16y ago
    Java schools don't make money from the students by "formalizing existing knowledge", though. It's more of a prisoners' dilemma: they make the most money by relying on other schools to formalize knowledge, and then delivering it to their own students as cheaply, but with as much implied authoritativeness, as possible. But I meant to indict here more than just what you normally think of as "Java schools"—virtually all Universities are receptacles for students who go to them to get a high-paying (and high-status!) job, and thus virtually all Universities cater to those students. Java schools are just more upfront about it. How Universities actually make their money is a combination of convincing students to study there, and receiving grants. Both of these rely on the status of the researchers in the employ of the University—even though the researchers (the Ph.Ds) are very infrequently the students' lecturers. Students pay not to learn from high-status people, but simply to coexist in an environment with them, and have the "status" of the institution rub off on them. In order to reverse this process, we have to remove "has studied at high-status University X" as a judging criterion for high-status jobs. That may well be impossible, though, given how embedded the idea has become in our culture.
    - hga 16y ago
      "even though the researchers (the Ph.Ds) are very infrequently the students' lecturers" That's not true at MIT; are there any other exceptions to this sad pattern in research universities? One of the advantages of the lowest tier schols that don't do (much) research is that their faculty are there to teach first and foremost. When the system works, when the instructor is sufficiently in command of his material, you get a better result than in the mid-tier schools.
    - dagw 16y ago
      though the researchers (the Ph.Ds) are very infrequently the students' lecturers. Who does teach at these Universities? Almost all my lecturers where either current researchers or former researchers currently focusing on writing and teaching. I can only think of one or two courses where the lecturer didn't at least have (or was working towards) a relevant PhD.
fleitz 16y ago
Microsoft Research does a lot of basic R&D. Most technology companies are fundamentally R&D companies. Also, the J Craig Venter institute. One of the issues that with the transition from the industrial age to the information age is that our focus has shifted from industrial research to information research. Because so much of the information age is intangible it's unclear that real progress is happening. Two things have happened that further hide these issues, the results of research are incrementally realized and the pace has increased to such a rate that it is simply expected. News is when the transistor density or aerial density does NOT double in a year. Even with industrial research the issue is that no one is around to see the benefits. When someone figures out how to run a lights out factory they will be hailed as greedy instead of innovative. Even the BP disaster is an example of corporate R&D, does anyone else find it incredible that we are repairing (or not repairing) an oil well that is 5,000 feet under water and there are no humans in sight? The fact that the disaster is even possible should be awe inspiring to the technological progress of humanity.
- ebiester 16y ago
  It would be nice if we were repairing it. :/ However, I think my first reaction to the depth that they were drilling was "That's fucking awesome!" rather than "that's fucking stupid." The stupid was finding out that they were taking this for granted now and skimping on the safety. Speaking of, BP does a lot of R&D in the energy field themselves. Even the energy companies want to be in on alternative energy when it comes.
  - bnoordhuis 16y ago
    > Even the energy companies want to be in on alternative energy when it comes. The oil companies are not stupid. There will come a day when it is no longer economically feasible to extract the remaining oil. Any company that hasn't diversified by then can turn off the lights and go home.
- vog 16y ago
  > The fact that the [BP] disaster is even possible should be awe inspiring to the technological progress of humanity. I wouldn't describe that as "technological progress". Technology is usually described as 1) controlling natural powers to 2) reach some purpose. The BP disaster fails to achieve both. More generally, sloppy security standards are a strong sign that a technology is either not fully developed or not fully understood. This holds for engineering as well as for programming. So the disaster is a sign of missing progress in technology.
blhack 16y ago
Honestly, I'd say that google is... I mean...they make smartphones now, how does that make sense beyond "well, we locked a bunch of geeks in a room, and they thought this would be cool...so we did it!". Or howabout google books? Or all the dark fibre they purchased...or the google datacenter in a shipping container things? Perhaps my vision is skewed as an outsider looking in, but google seems to make a lot of really cool things. They seem to adhere to the "innovate now, monetize later" model, which is really cool.
- moolave 16y ago
  What I do like about this principle is, these "thinkers" do draw out awesome ideas from a source. I will be sounding esoteric here - and you can start your nonchalance, but there definitely is a way of tapping into that superconscious knowledge through that untapped ether. I believe most of history's brilliant ideas came from those type of environments.
- kimfuh 16y ago
  youtube.com/testtube
- count 16y ago
  They didn't have a bunch of geeks sitting around thinking that up - they bought a company that was actively working on it. Android isn't a google invention - it was an acquisition.
albertsun 16y ago
HP Research and Intel both do a lot of basic research as well.

That's a great advertisement. It's too bad that groups like Westinghouse's R&D division and Bell Labs aren't around anymore. Are there any real corporate research groups doing basic research anymore?

vecter 16y ago

Microsoft Research and AT&T Labs are still doing some fundamental stuff.

wizawuza 16y ago

ibm's watson is still up to no good

derefr 16y ago

There are a few, but I would say that most basic research these days is academic. However, today's Universities are similar enough to corporations that their professors and grad students can be considered to be "corporate research groups." If we kill the Java school (or more generally "University is knowledge worker trade-school") mentality, Universities will stop being able to signal their value through "owning" large numbers of researchers, and all the demand for innovation will shift back to corporations.

wisty 16y ago
OK, I have to disagree, simply because I think it's that's a wonderful argument and HN bans empty ++ posts. Companies that do basic research are a different kettle of fish. They make money on breakthroughs and innovation. Java schools make money on students, so the thinking is an entirely different kind - formalizing existing knowledge (so the students can study something more "academic"). Sure, you can formalize code as category theory, algebra, sets, and so on, but it's not exactly an out-of-box breakthrough. Also, the type of researchers you get are excellent students, not engineers who made innovations in the field and got kicked up to the lab.
- derefr 16y ago
  Java schools don't make money from the students by "formalizing existing knowledge", though. It's more of a prisoners' dilemma: they make the most money by relying on other schools to formalize knowledge, and then delivering it to their own students as cheaply, but with as much implied authoritativeness, as possible. But I meant to indict here more than just what you normally think of as "Java schools"—virtually all Universities are receptacles for students who go to them to get a high-paying (and high-status!) job, and thus virtually all Universities cater to those students. Java schools are just more upfront about it. How Universities actually make their money is a combination of convincing students to study there, and receiving grants. Both of these rely on the status of the researchers in the employ of the University—even though the researchers (the Ph.Ds) are very infrequently the students' lecturers. Students pay not to learn from high-status people, but simply to coexist in an environment with them, and have the "status" of the institution rub off on them. In order to reverse this process, we have to remove "has studied at high-status University X" as a judging criterion for high-status jobs. That may well be impossible, though, given how embedded the idea has become in our culture.
  - hga 16y ago
    "even though the researchers (the Ph.Ds) are very infrequently the students' lecturers" That's not true at MIT; are there any other exceptions to this sad pattern in research universities? One of the advantages of the lowest tier schols that don't do (much) research is that their faculty are there to teach first and foremost. When the system works, when the instructor is sufficiently in command of his material, you get a better result than in the mid-tier schools.
  - dagw 16y ago
    though the researchers (the Ph.Ds) are very infrequently the students' lecturers. Who does teach at these Universities? Almost all my lecturers where either current researchers or former researchers currently focusing on writing and teaching. I can only think of one or two courses where the lecturer didn't at least have (or was working towards) a relevant PhD.

fleitz 16y ago

Microsoft Research does a lot of basic R&D. Most technology companies are fundamentally R&D companies. Also, the J Craig Venter institute. One of the issues that with the transition from the industrial age to the information age is that our focus has shifted from industrial research to information research. Because so much of the information age is intangible it's unclear that real progress is happening. Two things have happened that further hide these issues, the results of research are incrementally realized and the pace has increased to such a rate that it is simply expected. News is when the transistor density or aerial density does NOT double in a year. Even with industrial research the issue is that no one is around to see the benefits. When someone figures out how to run a lights out factory they will be hailed as greedy instead of innovative. Even the BP disaster is an example of corporate R&D, does anyone else find it incredible that we are repairing (or not repairing) an oil well that is 5,000 feet under water and there are no humans in sight? The fact that the disaster is even possible should be awe inspiring to the technological progress of humanity.

ebiester 16y ago
It would be nice if we were repairing it. :/ However, I think my first reaction to the depth that they were drilling was "That's fucking awesome!" rather than "that's fucking stupid." The stupid was finding out that they were taking this for granted now and skimping on the safety. Speaking of, BP does a lot of R&D in the energy field themselves. Even the energy companies want to be in on alternative energy when it comes.
- bnoordhuis 16y ago
  > Even the energy companies want to be in on alternative energy when it comes. The oil companies are not stupid. There will come a day when it is no longer economically feasible to extract the remaining oil. Any company that hasn't diversified by then can turn off the lights and go home.
vog 16y ago
> The fact that the [BP] disaster is even possible should be awe inspiring to the technological progress of humanity. I wouldn't describe that as "technological progress". Technology is usually described as 1) controlling natural powers to 2) reach some purpose. The BP disaster fails to achieve both. More generally, sloppy security standards are a strong sign that a technology is either not fully developed or not fully understood. This holds for engineering as well as for programming. So the disaster is a sign of missing progress in technology.

blhack 16y ago

Honestly, I'd say that google is... I mean...they make smartphones now, how does that make sense beyond "well, we locked a bunch of geeks in a room, and they thought this would be cool...so we did it!". Or howabout google books? Or all the dark fibre they purchased...or the google datacenter in a shipping container things? Perhaps my vision is skewed as an outsider looking in, but google seems to make a lot of really cool things. They seem to adhere to the "innovate now, monetize later" model, which is really cool.

moolave 16y ago
What I do like about this principle is, these "thinkers" do draw out awesome ideas from a source. I will be sounding esoteric here - and you can start your nonchalance, but there definitely is a way of tapping into that superconscious knowledge through that untapped ether. I believe most of history's brilliant ideas came from those type of environments.
kimfuh 16y ago
youtube.com/testtube
count 16y ago
They didn't have a bunch of geeks sitting around thinking that up - they bought a company that was actively working on it. Android isn't a google invention - it was an acquisition.

albertsun 16y ago

HP Research and Intel both do a lot of basic research as well.