3 ms·

I don't believe that narrative. For every $10 million you let remain in the private economy (instead of shifting to academia), you will get the same or more in

by javert 11y ago

I don't believe that narrative. For every $10 million you let remain in the private economy (instead of shifting to academia), you will get the same or more innovation. IBM, Intel and Google have contributed far more to computer science than academia ever did, and the Internet would have happened either way. I am (temporarily) in academia, and I can tell you, it truly is a Soviet-style allocation system. Of course if you throw enough money at something with a ton of smart people you will get breakthroughs, but in general, it is corrupt, crappy, and only marginally honest.

mullen 11y ago
> IBM, Intel and Google have contributed far more to computer science than academia ever did, and the Internet would have happened either way. I doubt that. The only way that something like the Internet could have been created is if a 'third party' of industry created it, which in this case is academia and DARPA funds. Before the rise of the Internet, there were private paid networks that were restricted and never talked to competing networks. The Internet destroyed those networks and now we get our Internet access (mostly) raw. Also, do you realize that most of the basics and rise of computer science comes out of academia? If a Google or Microsoft could have patiented basic computer tech, they would have, stunting the growth of the field for 50 years or so.
- javert 11y ago
  > The only way that something like the Internet could have been created is if a 'third party' of industry created it That's not a justified conclusion. If government academics had created airplanes or the internal combusition engine, people would say that was the only way they could have come about. > Also, do you realize that most of the basics and rise of computer science comes out of academia? A lot of the basics of computer science really did come from IBM. > If a Google or Microsoft could have patiented basic computer tech, they would have, stunting the growth of the field for 50 years or so. Patent laws are a government creation, so they're the same basic kind of thing academia is. They are not a fundamental fact about the way human societies and economies work. So we can't take that for granted and then use it as a premise to argue against something else. (I acutally do support certain kinds of patents, though, and the effect of patents is usually the exact opposite of what you say here.)

by javert 11y ago

mullen 11y ago

> IBM, Intel and Google have contributed far more to computer science than academia ever did, and the Internet would have happened either way. I doubt that. The only way that something like the Internet could have been created is if a 'third party' of industry created it, which in this case is academia and DARPA funds. Before the rise of the Internet, there were private paid networks that were restricted and never talked to competing networks. The Internet destroyed those networks and now we get our Internet access (mostly) raw. Also, do you realize that most of the basics and rise of computer science comes out of academia? If a Google or Microsoft could have patiented basic computer tech, they would have, stunting the growth of the field for 50 years or so.

javert 11y ago
> The only way that something like the Internet could have been created is if a 'third party' of industry created it That's not a justified conclusion. If government academics had created airplanes or the internal combusition engine, people would say that was the only way they could have come about. > Also, do you realize that most of the basics and rise of computer science comes out of academia? A lot of the basics of computer science really did come from IBM. > If a Google or Microsoft could have patiented basic computer tech, they would have, stunting the growth of the field for 50 years or so. Patent laws are a government creation, so they're the same basic kind of thing academia is. They are not a fundamental fact about the way human societies and economies work. So we can't take that for granted and then use it as a premise to argue against something else. (I acutally do support certain kinds of patents, though, and the effect of patents is usually the exact opposite of what you say here.)