Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Former Intel CEO Andy Grove Wants Struggling Industries To Stop Slacking

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the and-get-a-haircut dept.

Businesses 235

lousyd writes "Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel and current instructor at Stanford Business School, has a message for industry. He believes that health care and energy, especially, could learn a lesson from computing's innovative and relatively government-free history. He asks students to imagine if mainframe vendors had asked government to prop them up in the same way that General Motors recently was. On the issue of computer patents, he insists that firms must use their patents or lose them: 'You can't just sit on your a** and give everyone the finger.'"

cancel ×

235 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (5, Insightful)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322415)

A "use em or lose'm" rule would be good for fixing the patent troll problem, but it would do nothing to prevent software companies from attacking free software [swpat.org] or from ruining standards [swpat.org] .

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322569)

Stop acting like standards are handed down from God on stone tablets. Unless government regulated or agreed to in a contractual form, standards mean nothing.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (2, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322625)

Hmm, so you're posting via prayer?

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322783)

**WOOSH**

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322845)

No, the correct response is "Amen".

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322887)

Ramen.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322713)

Then explain to me how we are communicating with a common language. Show me the government regulation or contract we have mutually signed which sets out the standards for the English language.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (2, Insightful)

bhima (46039) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322813)

Not that I really have a dog in this hunt but I think the comparison of colloquial English and computer communication protocols is an extremely poor one. Perhaps legal English would make for a better but still imperfect comparison... and that certainly has a long history of regulation, negotiation, contractual agreement.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322719)

Which, of course, explains how C++ was standardized, and why very few programs are written in Ada...

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322629)

And that's exactly what they want (stop loosing some money to patent trolls but keep all the "advantages" of this absurd system). Bad is, it puts small inventors out of equation (although the patent system was specifically designed because of them) because their ideas will be legally stolen before they can turn it into a product.

I'm sure that politicians would be in favor of a pro-corporate change, because it does it's purpose of protecting established technical strongholds from arising competitors. That way western economies want to keep being protected from countries that manage to develop a competition and to keep technological and economical advantage forever. I belive this is primarilly why government is so keen on keeping software patents around, despite many complaints. Free software is a headache to all of them, as it's basically a domestic community product, so attacking and endagering it provokes a strong backlash and stone throwing on politicians and "offending" companies.

The protection of a lone inventor is just an utopia, anyway. So, I'm in favour of shutting the patent system down alltogether, but I don't belive it will happen. It's not in the interest of wealthy people.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (5, Interesting)

cavehobbit (652751) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322731)

I have been thinking lately, (don't let that scare you), that instead of the patent system granting exclusive rights, it should grant exclusive royalties.

In other words, it becomes a registration system that grantees payment of royalties to inventors for a specific period of time, paid by anyone that wants to use a patent.

So a patent holder can not restrict use of an invention. this allows others to use it as a base for further invention and innovation. It also removes, to a big extent, any reason for companies to fight patent awards, or try to steal or use patents without paying, which might lower the number of lawsuits, etc. Why risk paying lawyers when you can just use it cheaply and legally?.

I am not certain how to determine the royalty rate though. Could an auction system work? Or maybe a percentage of the cost to manufacture, which would be harder to fudge than percentage of profit?

One reform does need to be made, similar to what the parent mentions: You should not be able to file a patent application for anything that is already being produced and marketed by anyone, including yourself. If you forget to file and it is sold or produced before the patent application is filed, well, you screwed up. It should automatically be in the public domain, regardless of what ever kind of excuses or prior evidence you can mock up.

The world has changed since the 18th century when the basis for the U.S. patent system was formed. (I dunno about other systems). It is far easier to keep track of what people are making and selling in distant places than it was 300 years ago, and easier to assess royalties, etc. There seems to no longer need to be a simple ban on anyone else using a patent.

Yeah, lots of details lef tout, and probably lots of holes, and a bunch of new problems different than the current ones. But would it be an improvement over the current system? Maybe you patent gurus here can comment.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (2, Interesting)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323219)

Instinctively I tend to agree with you.

Taking away the capacity of the patent holder to screw down the person who is innovating based upon patented work is a good thing, but then the patent holder deserves a return for their R&D. Perhaps if the rules were fixed up front, that would be give certainty. I'm not sure about auctioning, since a lot more variables come into play. Perhaps if you set royalties at 20% that would be good for both patent holder and user over the long term.

But what about derivative works based on two or more patents? - So I'm not sure the whole royalty system would work so easily.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323393)

The other difficulty is setting the rate for the royalty. Should a component for a car gearing system get the same royalty as a component for an MRI machine, even though the latter cost ten times as much R&D spending and will ship a tiny fraction of the number of units? If not, how do you decide how much more it should cost? I'm in favour of compulsory licensing for copyright and patents, but setting the royalty rate is difficult.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (1)

Roogna (9643) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323545)

Well reading the description, making it a percentage would fix that anyway. A component for a cheap item would cost less because the profit/gross/whatever is less. While the component for the very expensive item would cost more for the royalties.

The real key would be weather the patent royalties percentage is based on an amount that took into account the other royalties being paid or not. If say it was %20 (which is probably very high for some such thing) then it'd be really easy for someone building, say a MRI machine, to infringe enough patents (just five needed!) to mean whoever builds the machine not only is paying out all their profit from the machine to patent holder, but would STILL owe others.

So it'd probably need to be more complicated of a formula than a straight percentage. Something more like %5 (max, free to negotiate with the patent holder for less), of say %80 of the gross on a sale. Leaving a profit for all involved. And on very complicated items (even like a car), it should probably be calculated per component. Because it's very easy for something like a car, or computer, or MRI machine to have hundreds of patented components. But you could probably calculate it based per component that would be replaceable on the cost of replacing the single component.

As complicated as it would get, it would basically solve the software patent issue in regards to open source software. Since it's being given away, no profit, no royalties owed on patents. And it'd put the patent system back firmly where it belongs, manufacturing inventions.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322747)

I read that the original argument for patents was to avoid the secretive guilds of the medieval era. That is, in exchange for temporary societal protection and granting of monopoly, information was opened up. Now, perhaps that was the argument needed when back in the day, all you really "owned" was what you could protect and horde.

But I wonder how much of that purpose today's patents actually achieve in obtaining, for the public, new info worth having, rather than obvious variants, rehashed variants, or things that could be reversed engineered from products of the company. Many of the interesting things still are done under "propietary" (read: secret) processes.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (1, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322767)

Andy Grove said, "You can't just sit on your a** and give everyone the finger." And later he added, "Hey you kids, get off my damn lawn!" ;-)

But Mr. Grove is correct - government often makes things stagnate and hold steady, such as when AT&T had a government-protected monopoly over the phone lines and computer modems. From the 1950s to the 1980s the only speeds available were 110 bit/s and 300 bit/s. If AT&T still held that monopoly, we'd still have 0.3 kbit/s modems and the late-90s web explosion would have been impossible (too slow).

But the Carterphone decision (circa 1981) eliminated that monopoly and multiple companies began a "speedwar" that rapidly moved speeds from 0.3 to 56k in only ten years time. And then they branched-out further with cable companies bring 1 Mbit and higher speeds, which forced phone companies to adapt or die.

Another (in)famous example was the Government-owned Tribant car. Yeah sure the government made sure people had cars, but the technology was stuck in the 1940s. Government stagnates.

AT&T and other monopolies (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29323059)

But Mr. Grove is correct - government often makes things stagnate and hold steady, such as when AT&T had a government-protected monopoly over the phone lines and computer modems

The reason AT&T was created as a monopoly was to help build telephone infrastructure.

There used to be dozens of telephone companies and electrical utilities. However they only served urban areas and everyone strung up their own cables. When they went bust the cables were left there as there was no one to clean them up.

Monopolies were legislated so that one company could build the infrastructure for all residents (urban and rural). They were guaranteed a fixed profit and in exchange had to serve all areas equally, with urban dwellers subsidizing the building of infrastructure in rural parts (farming was greatly helped by electrification in many aspects--which helped them become more efficient and lower food prices).

Now perhaps the phone monopoly was allowed to live too long. Or perhaps the monopoly should have been for the infrastructure (cables), and there should have been competition for the actual service (like Sweden does with ISPs). But the monopoly was initially formed for very good reasons, and without it we wouldn't have the electrical and telephone infrastructure as quickly as we did.

And other government interference was Europe mandating GSM: it forced all companies on the same playing field and gave people choices in equipment and services. Whereas in the US laissez faire model you have multiple carriers, with multiple standards, with only token "competition" between them because once someone on one system the switching costs can be very high.

The competition should be in services, not in infrastructure. The infrastructure should be one open standard (either voluntarily picked or mandated).

Re:AT&T and other monopolies (4, Insightful)

bubbha (61990) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323117)

Not to mention NASA. The market and private enterprise could never have put a man on the moon in 10 years. Government set the strategy and arranged for private companies to make it happen.

Note that the space program (and military) drove the creation of technology to create commercial integrated circuits. How convenient to forget the help that government provides after the fact.

Of course without that arrogance - perhaps he would never have become the effective manager that he once was.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (3, Insightful)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323097)

Not true. Read up on the history of Bell Labs [wikipedia.org] , the state owned research branch of AT&T. Without it, computing wouldn't be anything like today.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323337)

Yes, true. AT&T had Bell Labs, which did indeed make all kinds of amazing discoveries that are the foundation of modern computing and data communications. However, AT&T management had no interest in pushing those discoveries out in to the field. They had a government-backed monopoly that was making them more than adequate money, and when push came to shove, they had no interest in disturbing the status quo.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (2, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323397)

Andy Grove said, "You can't just sit on your a** and give everyone the finger." And later he added, "Hey you kids, get off my damn lawn!" ;-)

I think Andy Grove deserves more respect than you are giving him. Remember, this is a man who can vocalise two asterisks in a row.

Re:use em or lose'm for patents doesn't fix much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322953)

so? not everybody buys into the gnu religion, you know? most people don't think richard stallman should get a free pass just because he has a nasty dirty long beard. and we happy to live in a democracy, not a gnuocracy or beard-o-cracy or urine-stench-o-cracy.

So, what's the answer supposed to be? (4, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322433)

He asks students to imagine if mainframe vendors had asked government to prop them up in the same way that General Motors recently was.

Perhaps there would have been more supercomputers? Or the internet would have arrived sooner and networking would be more advanced? None of us know what would have happened. Assuming it would have been worse is just speculation.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (4, Insightful)

godIsaDJ (644331) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322455)

He asks students to imagine if mainframe vendors had asked government to prop them up in the same way that General Motors recently was.

Perhaps there would have been more supercomputers? Or the internet would have arrived sooner and networking would be more advanced? None of us know what would have happened. Assuming it would have been worse is just speculation.

Given the history of such enterprises, learned speculation would tell it'd have to be worse... You are saying that since they didn't have a chance to screw that up, magically it would turn out to be their only success...

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (3, Informative)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322537)

No, that's not what they said at all. They said it's ignorant to assume either way.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322657)

So, is it also ignorant to assume that if I take a few steps off my roof that I'll fall and hurt myself? I mean it's only about 15 feet, I suppose if I fell correctly, I might not break anything.

This is a pretty well known problem, and there's a very good reason why the assumption is valid. Innovating and coming up with new ideas is both hard and expensive. If you don't believe that government intervention of this sort kills progress, just look at the various Russian industries that have and are going nowhere.

Now look at industries in the US that have been messed with in a similar way by our government, surprisingly there isn't that much difference beyond what corruption explains. What you're arguing against is a pretty fundamental element in economics, and while I question a lot of ideas that economists have, this one has a lot of merit to it.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (5, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322579)

I dunno, government funding of private enterprise has worked pretty spectacularly in the past. For example; the railroad system, The New Deal, WWII spending, interstate highways, aerospace technology, the Apollo missions, ARPANET, etc. And those are only a few examples from the US, ignoring other countries' initiatives.

Of course, there are plenty of spectacular failures too, but that's true of any human endeavor. But like I said, this is just speculation. Would we have had the internet at the time we did without government funding?

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (3, Interesting)

dyfet (154716) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322671)

The private sector was clearly interested only in hoping "data islands" from which "publishing" could be strictly controlled (and billed) along with limited interconnection through proprietary network protocols, and not in creating some kind of generic interconnection as such where network services and data could be offered by any participating peer. If we did not have the government funded Internet at the start, we would still be today essentially experiencing some decadent of or something like Compuserve or AoL, that is a metered data service delivered from an isolated digital island, and perhaps even things like broadband may never have become widely available outside of businesses looking to connect ipx over x.25 networks :).

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322851)

>>>For example; the railroad system, The New Deal, WWII spending, interstate highways, aerospace technology, the Apollo missions, ARPANET, etc.
>>>

OMG. You call these successes? Let's see:

- railroads were funded *privately* not publicly. And now that rail has been taken-over by government, it's constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Ditto the government-run post office.

- The New Deal was a major fuckup that extended the recession from 1929 to 1950. Contrast that with the 1921 recession when the government did nothing, and yes it was bad, but the economy quickly recovered in 1922.

- WW2 was a horror not a success.

- Most interstate highways (like I-76/I-80) are paved-over already existing State Turnpikes, which were *private* funded businesses. Their genesis lies in the spirit of entrepreneurship. Now that government has taken-over a lot of them are falling apart (see bridge collapses).

- Aerospace was born in the backyards of hobbyists with a vision, and brought to fruition by a military looking for weapons, which you're right - governments are very effective at waging war.

- ARPAnet is something for which government deserves credit, but after 1980 the government was intelligent enough to step aside and let private companies take over, and that's why these was an enormous boom (from 0.1 or 0.3 kbit/s speeds under the government-run stagnation to ~100,000 kbit/s speeds with competitive speedwars).

- Social Security has been a joke, because if you live long enough to get it, the "interest rate" earned on your original deposit is only 1%... below the inflation rate so effectively negative growth. If you don't live long enough to see retirement (a more common problem than many people realize), the money you get back is ZERO! ----- You'd be better-off having a simple savings account could be handed-off to your children if you die, rather than disappear forever. Plus you'd earn much much greater growth, than investing in the government's SS.

I'll stop here. I could go on-and-on-and-on about government failures, bankruptcies, misappropriation of funds, et cetera, but my hands hurt so I'll just stop here and let you absorb what you've heard.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (3, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322987)

- railroads were funded *privately* not publicly. And now that rail has been taken-over by government, it's constantly on the verge of bankruptcy. Ditto the government-run post office.

No, the first transcontinental railroads were heavily government funded.

- The New Deal was a major fuckup that extended the recession from 1929 to 1950.

In some people's opinion, but it is likely that without action it would have been a lot worse.

- WW2 was a horror not a success.

The war itself was, but America profited massively from it, in economic and technological terms.

- Social Security has been a joke, because if you live long enough to get it, the "interest rate" earned on your original deposit is only 1%...

I didn't mention Social Security, but the point of it is not to provide a return on investment, but to provide security to society. Which it does, with varying effectiveness.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323085)

>>>No, the first transcontinental railroads were heavily government funded.

False. ONE transcontinental railroad (the first) was supported with free land from the Congress. The funding was entirely private, and all future railroads were done without government assistance. And of course the original lines that connected all of the cities east of the Mississippi River, and west of the Sierras, were privately funded too.
.

>>>provide a return on investment, but to provide security to society. Which it does, with varying effectiveness.

A private savings account would provide greater security, simply because you know that if you die before 70, it will be passed-onto your children, rather than disappear. It's also greater security because living on a half-million-dollar savings FEELS more secure than living on a teeny-tiny $500 government check.

And last but not least, we already have Welfare and Food Stamps to provide for those in need. The SS program is redundant and not necessary. Plus it's been used/abused by the government to fund other projects as if it was just an ordinary tax meant to be spent.

SS == Epic fail. Almost-everything the government touches is a fail

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (2, Informative)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323537)

SS also provides disability insurance. And if you die early you're children still benefit by not having to pay for monthly check.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (2, Interesting)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323077)

P.S:

I didn't respond to all your points, because many of them you conceded that government involvement was useful. However, your Social Security example is particularly off-base, because I was talking about government-private relationships, which Social Security is not really an example of. It seems to me that private enterprise when combined with government backing (combined mandates for public benefit) produce more remarkable results than either purely government or purely private endeavors do.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (1)

P0ltergeist333 (1473899) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323139)

Yeah, not to mention the funding of Bell Labs by the NIH when among other things, the transistor was invented. And it's not like ARPANET (what eventually became the internet, thanks to infrastructure improvements specifically for and due to the public use) had anything to do with selling microprocessors and NIC cards and communications related IC's. And he must have forgotten that 21 million dollar contract from Darpa that intel got in 1992, not to mention government orders for the i860's and i960's, also in the early 90's. Coincidentally close to the development of the Pentium, which could arguably be said to be responsible for their utter domination of the processor market until AMD came back in 1999 with the Athlon followed by the XP and 64, which finally allowed them (coincidentally) a market share almost exactly big enough to prevent claims of monopoly... Talk about revisionist history.

For what it's worth, I agree with him about patents.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323433)

And he must have forgotten that 21 million dollar contract from Darpa that intel got in 1992, not to mention government orders for the i860's and i960's, also in the early 90's.

There's a big difference between a government contract and a government bailout. In the former case, the government expects you to produce something, although this appears not to apply to contracts awarded to EDS.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322729)

> Given the history of such enterprises, learned speculation would tell it'd have to be worse.

The real problem is that governmental successes tend to be transparent, whereas the failures are visible, thus it's easy for the lazy and the idiotic to claim there were only failures.

Re:So, what's the answer supposed to be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29323047)

He asks students to imagine if mainframe vendors had asked government to prop them up in the same way that General Motors recently was.

Perhaps there would have been more supercomputers? Or the internet would have arrived sooner and networking would be more advanced? None of us know what would have happened. Assuming it would have been worse is just speculation.

LOL. Literally. Wondering what US government you're familiar with.

Hoping the US government will change things for the better is a pipe dream, but only if you actually look at the history of the US government.

O really! (2, Insightful)

siloko (1133863) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322443)

You can't just sit on your a** and give everyone the finger

Beg [slashdot.org]
to [slashdot.org]
differ [slashdot.org] ,
twice [slashdot.org] ,
three times [slashdot.org] and maybe even
four [slashdot.org] !

Re:O really! (1)

Lidadai (1631795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322641)

thanks anyway.. Lida [lida.name.tr] Lida [lidaturkiye.net] Lida [lidaturkiye.com] Lida [lidakapsul.org]

Re:O really! (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322911)

Burma Shave [slashdot.org]

No thanks (2, Insightful)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322459)

Government-free energy implies more coal power plants.
Few energy companies are interested in multi-billions long term investments in energy efficiency & renewables.
The path of least resistance is coal, which also happens to be the dirtiest solution.

Re:No thanks (2, Interesting)

afaiktoit (831835) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322675)

If only there were as many protests to stop mountain top removal as there are to stop from putting up wind farms. Plus all the slack coal gets over their slag and ash dumps and all the mercury they're putting into the fish.

Re:No thanks (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323365)

If only there were as many protests to stop mountain top removal as there are to stop from putting up wind farms.

If only the mountain top removal was near rich liberal Democratic politicians, and the wind farms near poor Appalachian mountaineers...

Re:No thanks (2, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322717)

The path of least resistance is coal, which also happens to be the dirtiest solution.

This.

Except, not probably in the way that you think.

If we want to see the world use energy efficiency and renewables, then ideally we find a way to make them the path of least resistance.

Make it make cents, and suddenly it will make sense as well. It doesn't work in every case, but on the supply side of the equation it gets exponentially more important.

Re:No thanks (4, Informative)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322761)

No, government-free energy implies more nuclear. Excessive government regulation of nuclear power has artificially increased the cost of nuclear power beyond reason. Nuclear power has a far lower cost of operation.

Re:No thanks (2, Interesting)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322839)

Operation, perhaps. But the long-term waste storage problem is a real bitch. Of course, without outdated government concern over proliferation, we might have fuel reprocessing coupled with more advanced reactors, leaving us with waste that is nasty for a shorter term, and a whole lot less of it overall.

Re:No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322931)

What you're thinking about is the 1970's way of storing nuclear waste, which is what Greenpeace and all the other hippies are still trudging on about.

Nuclear waste disposal has become quite a bit more efficient since those days. You should read up on it instead of staying in the dark.

Re:No thanks (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323257)

Okay, I'll bite. I'll admit I'm no nuclear expert; all comments below are strictly IMHO/AFAIK.

Let me clarify my original comment. In the US, we seem intent on burying the waste we produce. It seems to me that since most of a conventional "used" reactor rod is usable fuel, reprocessing our "waste" first is a good idea. Too bad our government is slow to support it.

Also, alternative reactor designs offer the ability to burn what was once considered waste, leaving stuff that has a shorter half-life, meaning that the length time required for sequestering it is less, which seems like a good thing.

Your thoughts?

Re:No thanks (4, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323411)

We've had the technology since the 60s to build reactors that don't produce fuel "waste". The only thing standing in the way of progress in the field for the last 50 years is government interference and anti-nuclear hysteria.

Re:No thanks (5, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323019)

The hardest part about long term waste storage is getting people to give it as little thought as they give the millions of tons of material pumped into the atmosphere by coal power plants (and it is becoming clear that they actually put more radiation into the environment than nuclear, so it isn't just a matter of the potential problems associated with the CO2).

The idea of creating institutions that need to stand for thousands of years is a little scary, but I'm a lot more scared of turning off the lights.

Re:No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29323145)

No, government-free energy implies more nuclear. Excessive government regulation of nuclear power has artificially increased the cost of nuclear power beyond reason. Nuclear power has a far lower cost of operation.

Yeah! Damn those safety rules! Why do we need six metres of concrete surrounding nuclear reactors?! What could possible go wrong?

Look at the excellent results that Wall Street has given us since regulations have been cut back on since 2000! /humour

Compare and contrast: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Also, what government oversight and regulation prevented with the 1980s S&Ls (which could have been much worse, but for William Black et al.), and the current mess (which the FBI warned us about in 2004 in Congressional testimony, and no one did anything about).

Re:No thanks (1)

Zak3056 (69287) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323465)

Compare and contrast: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

You're not helping the pro-government case with that particular example.

Re:No thanks (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323167)

Nuclear is the one place I'd appreciate excessive regulation.

Re:No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29323353)

"Excessive government regulation of nuclear power has artificially increased the cost of nuclear power beyond reason."

Exactly. If nuclear power companies don't think it is necessary to spend the ridiculous amount of money it takes to build a strong containment building, why should they? Like the Russian RBMK design [wikipedia.org] , which has multiple redundant safety features built into it, but not an excess of them, such as a containment building on top. It is also much cheaper because it doesn't need enriched uranium -- cheap to build, and cheap to run.

I guess it depends upon what you consider "excess", though.

Re:No thanks (3, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322883)

>>>Government-free energy implies more coal power plants.

Vice-versa government-run "cash for clunkers" means perfectly good cars were taken off the road, squashed, and thrown into landfills. The government didn't even bother to strip the parts and sell them (recycling), but instead declared that to be illegal. Had a private megacorp done that they'd be pilloried but when government does it, it's labeled a success.

Next up - "cash for breakers" where people are encouraged to break their windows and buy all new ones.

Re:No thanks (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323113)

Very few of the cars destroyed were worth more than $4500 (think about it for a few minutes). And only the drive train needed to be destroyed, junk yards were free to strip other parts from the vehicles (and even the drive train was almost certainly sold as scrap, not buried in the ground).

I'm doubtful that the program accomplished a great deal (It seems clear that it is a great way to do Keynesian stimulus, but it isn't as clear if that is a good idea), but if you didn't like cash for clunkers, you should be outraged by government programs that pay people, directly, for replacing their windows (with modern energy efficient windows).

Re:No thanks (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323159)

Vice-versa government-run "cash for clunkers" means perfectly good cars were taken off the road, squashed, and thrown into landfills. The government didn't even bother to strip the parts and sell them (recycling), but instead declared that to be illegal.

That's simply not true, only the engine block is seized. The car can then sold to registered salvage dealers who strip the vehicle for parts.

Re:No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29323531)

with the engine siezed tho, transporting the cars to the salvagers are far more expensive then if they could say be driven up into the car carriges for an 18 wheeler to haul a bunch at once, now they effectivly have to be towed, one by one

I'm too lazy to do it... (4, Insightful)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322465)

I'm too lazy to do it, but I think if I looked hard enough, I'm pretty sure I'd find a giant heap of government subsidization in Intel's past. It might be disguised as tax breaks, favorable legislation, or some sweet no-bid contract deal, but I doubt many companies get to Intel's size without getting some help along the way from their friends in state and federal governments. They were just smart enough to get it done in a way that's a lot less visible than the "ZOMG I CAN HAZ BAILOUT" approach taken recently.

Re:I'm too lazy to do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322909)

> "ZOMG I CAN HAZ BAILOUT"

LOLFatCats - who'd a thunk it ;-)

Re:I'm too lazy to do it... (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322923)

It actually makes sense to have companies be taxfree. They provide jobs which is a useful service to the nation and should be encouraged, just the same way we encourage other useful services like the foundation for the arts or the government-run school system or or city metro or whatever.

Plus we all know that taxes get paid by consumers anyway. If next year the Congress announced a 20% National Tax on every product sold, do you think Walmart or MS or other Corps would just say, "Oh that's okay. We'll pay it ourselves." Of course not. They'll pass it onto the customers as 20% higher prices. Corporate taxation is just a hidden tax that ultimately comes out of OUR wallets.

I think an organization that provides Americans with jobs should be tax exempt, if only as a way of saying "thank youse for my jarb". ;-)

Re:I'm too lazy to do it... (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322997)

But...But... If we stopped the massive taxation on businesses then it might be affordable for companies to build their products in the US instead of importing everything. Then how would we manage to destroy the middle class and the economy?

Re:I'm too lazy to do it... (1)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323251)

It actually makes sense to have companies be taxfree.

Whether it does or not, I think it's a little silly for a former CEO of a company like Intel to wag his finger at other industries and lecture them about getting benefits from the government.

Re:I'm too lazy to do it... (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323481)

It's more subtle than that. The idea of taxing corporations is that not everything corporations sell is sold you your taxpayers. If, for example, a US corporation is paying tax in the US and selling 10% of its products to Canadians, then only 90% of the corporate taxes have to be paid by US taxpayers, the rest are paid by Canadian taxpayers (you didn't believe that whole 'no taxation without representation' thing did you?). For large companies, this percentage is much higher, and so taxing the corporation means you get to lower taxes for the people who elected you. Of course, this stops working when corporations start using off-shore tax havens. It also doesn't work particularly well when you are a net importer from an economic standpoint, but it still does from a psychological standpoint ('foreign companies are making your cost of living go up, the government is lowering taxes!').

Re:I'm too lazy to do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322985)

Here are some indirect subsidies

      Nearly 100% of Intel PhD scientists and engineers have had their graduate training (and salaries while in graduate school) paid for by the NSF, DOE, DARPA etc.

      Much of the basic science behind modern microelectronics was performed with government funding at US universities

   

Re:I'm too lazy to do it... (1)

obarel (670863) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322995)

You mean like the $525m grant Intel received from the Israeli government?

You can't just sit on your a** and give the finger (1, Troll)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322499)

WOW! Talk about the cookware referring to the boiling vessel as chocolate coloured. ;-)

But ... without HMOs how will people get well? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322519)

Without health maintenance organizations no one would ever be able to maintain their health ... right?

Re:But ... without HMOs how will people get well? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322945)

>>>Without HMOs no one would ever be able to maintain their health ... right?

Wrong. You could just pay cash. That's what I do - just below $200 a year for my annual doctor's visit. It's cheaper to do that than to have insurance, just as it's cheaper to own a car than to rent it.

Re:But ... without HMOs how will people get well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29323401)

wait until you get to the ICU and try to find the half million to fix it.

Re:But ... without HMOs how will people get well? (1)

Maguscrowley (1291130) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323485)

Some people have chronic health conditions that need monitoring. Or would you like me to just see how things roll without my psychiatric medication, appointments, or the means to pay for my in-patient treatment? Perhaps you'd like to put me up for a while in your downstairs closet instead?

I don't bite .... trust me ... >:D

apples to oranges comparison (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322539)

People die because they can not get access to or afford health care, no so with Intel products.
Plus the U.S. Federal Gov requires that E.R.s treat those who can not pay*. Hey Andy, how about Intel give away CPUs, Chipsets, Motherboards and SSDs (w00t!) to those who can't afford 'em?

* So I've heard.

PS, no I did not read the article.

Re:apples to oranges comparison (1, Flamebait)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322623)

Plus the U.S. Federal Gov requires that E.R.s treat those who can not pay*. Hey Andy, how about Intel give away CPUs,

So, guys with guns forcing someone to give away his stuff is basically the same as someone giving away his stuff of his own free will?

Wow....

Re:apples to oranges comparison (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322991)

>>>People die because they can not get access to or afford health care, no so with Intel products.

In the United States there are only 8 million U.S. citizens that are not covered by either a private or government program. That's less than 3% of all Americans. PLEASE please stop exaggerating the problem just to push-forward your agenda. There is no reason to punish the other 97% with a government monopoly takeover.

Instead all you need to do is extend the existing programs (like medicare) to those 3% of uncovered persons. A simple fix.

Re:apples to oranges comparison (1)

agnosticnixie (1481609) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323221)

PLEASE please stop exaggerating the problem just to push-forward your agenda.

1. This is not the only point in the issue
2. Pot, meet kettle, it's black too.

Re:apples to oranges comparison (1)

beringreenbear (949867) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323379)

Okay... I'll see your "Expand the current program!" and counter with "Will you pay the higher taxes to expand said current program that offers services that are not available to you?"

Note: I'm not saying what I think the solution is. I'm just poking holes in your solution. I'll concede your point that health care is a clusterfuck and that the real solution is to take down the 60+ year built-out infrastructure, replacing it with different efficiencies. The US has the best rescue care in the world. If you need an organ transplant or you have cancer; if you can pay for it; you can get the best possible care in the world. Maybe we need to instead leave that infrastructure alone (you buy insurance for the big stuff) and figure something else out for the rest.

And what of.. (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322545)

software patents Mr. Grove? Has that helped creativity? I would have loved to have seen Mr. Grove go further and address this topic.

Here're his previous comments (1)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322617)

Here are his previous comments:

...but there's one more from around 2006 that I'm still looking for. Check back in a few minutes.

"Relatively government free" (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322559)

Has this doofus ever heard of DARPA or the NSA? The hardware, software and network industries wouldn't exist in their current form without the sponsorship of imperialism. Defeat U.S. imperialism!

Re:"Relatively government free" (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322693)

You do realize that, you're totally taking that and twisting it around, right? DARPA and the NSA demand results, they don't necessarily care what the cost is, but they do demand technological advancement or they will go elsewhere to get it. As opposed to the government tinkering in failing businesses giving them cash and pushing them around as to how to produce things for purchase by consumers.

It's not really the same thing.

Read the article, (2, Informative)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322561)

he hardly mentions healthcare in the way the summary implies. He states that the pharma industry needs to get it's ass in gear, and that's about it.

Re:Read the article, (1, Interesting)

loki_tiwaz (982852) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322755)

he hardly mentions healthcare in the way the summary implies. He states that the pharma industry needs to get it's ass in gear, and that's about it.

legalisation would sure put more money in pharma's pockets hahaha.

it's not really a surprise that a redundant and useless industry like pharmaceuticals is having a hard time these days. same with cars. these are things that are pretty vacant. nobody needs a new car every two years, a properly built car should last 30 years at least with an engine change and regular maintenance. and most drugs are sold to cover up symptoms of other problems like misconceptions about how much of each nutrient we actually need and the subtle long term effects of things that are classified 'safe'.

when times are tough, frivolous things tend to lose the consumer dollar. maybe if big pharma started funding real health research and exploring recreational psychoactive drugs they'd see their bottom line pick up. proper results in the former and safe drugs in the latter increase lifespans and happiness which results in a better economy. this idiotic idea that people can't be trusted to administer psychoactive drugs responsibily basically means these very clever pharmacology people have a very narrow field. psychoactives is a wide open field and nobody's legally allowed to capitalise on it. big pharma is best equipped to. shame it's not likely to happen.

the legacy of highly effective brainwashing campains against psychoactive drugs is a society that is afraid of the idea of investigating the field at all, let alone making it into a proper industry. if the entrenched psychoactive drug industries didn't have the advantage of irrational ridiculous laws and ideas about psychoactive drug use i'm sure they'd be in the shitter these days too. i can tell you one thing for sure, caffeine would NOT be the most widely consumed drug if people had the option of a vibrant research industry exploring other potential stimulants. and i'd say the liquor industry would probably be begging for bailouts too if they had to compete with a legal cannabis industry.

and before i neglect this point... guess which industry is the most thoroughly full of redundant non-useful activity? finance? not to say banks don't perform critical useful functions in society, but the more abstract derivatives get the less relevant they get to reality.

Re:Read the article, (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322935)

Right. Because we need more potent alternatives to crystal meth.

Look, if you want to legalize pot, go for it. No big deal. But sweeping up all "psychoactive drugs" together and legalizing them is a dumb fucking idea, and yes, there are a lot of people to stupid to manage taking psychoactive drugs responsibly. You want an example? Look at alcohol. Look at the deaths resulting from the widespread legal use of said drug, and tell me with a straight face that the answer is to unleash big pharma to make and market more chemical toys to play with.

And I'll bet that the same folks who are saying "The government should just, like, legalize drugs, dude" today are the ones who would be raving about a government/big pharma conspiracy to enslave our minds and empty our wallets with a flood of psychoactive drugs if your Utopian fantasy came to pass.

Re:Read the article, (2, Insightful)

loki_tiwaz (982852) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323007)

You want an example? Look at alcohol. Look at the deaths resulting from the widespread legal use of said drug, and tell me with a straight face that the answer is to unleash big pharma to make and market more chemical toys to play with.

yes, of course, the answer to a small part of the population mishandling something is prohibition. what about education? and your answer specifically implies that alcohol should be banned. yeah right, good luck with that. people only accepted prohibition of psychoactive drugs because they had available drug options, as well as of course the highly effective brainwashing techniques used to demonise the terrible drugs of the time - back in those days cannabis was the drug the filthy peasants used and that's why they attacked it.

fact is that people are using the drugs (amazing but true) anyway. and not enlarging the options for people is not helping, because it's a case of the devil you know. like meth, sure, it's got a lotta downsides, i know from personal experience. but what alternative is there?

at some point society as a whole is gonna have to really re-evaluate this whole business because the mess the current situation has created is a RESULT of prohibition. not the existence of any given drug.

lets say that somehow magically prohibition worked and all the illegal drugs suddenly evaporated. nobody was using illegal drugs. don't you think they'd turn to legal ones? do you even comprehend how big the legal drug abuse problem is now? oxycontin, vicodin, suboxone, valium whatever you care to name. legal drugs are more used in the wrong way than illegal ones. people use drugs for a reason and focusing on their behaviour when they misuse them is missing the point entirely.

Re:Read the article, (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323473)

your answer specifically implies that alcohol should be banned

Not at all. I homebrew beer, and firmly believe in my right to consume alcohol. Plus, prohibition has been tried and didn't work. My point is that I see no value in letting more genies out of the bottle (har har, no pun intended). There is a vast world of difference between having a drink or two and sucking on a crackpipe.

the mess the current situation has created is a RESULT of prohibition. not the existence of any given drug.

I disagree. Many drug problems exist independent of prohibition. Addiction does not depend on prohibition. In fact, the point I was trying to make with alcohol was not that it should be banned, but that legalization DOES NOT eliminate the problems. Here is an example of a legal drug causing lots of problems. Do we really need to multiply that? Alcohol and pot are baby aspirin compared to coke, meth, heroin.

like meth, sure, it's got a lotta downsides, i know from personal experience. but what alternative is there?

Soo ... you're saying that a lack of legally available meth is the problem? What alternative is there? How about not taking it? Works for most people.

do you even comprehend how big the legal drug abuse problem is now?

Better than you think.

Right on, brother! (1)

bonze (1578437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323111)

... and can anybody on /. point me towards somebody who can hook me up with some Substance D, or maybe some Chew-Z?

I heard that shit's OUTTASIGHT!

Re:Read the article, (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322785)

From TFA:

"The lack of proper electronic medical records and 'smart clinical decision systems' bothers him..."

. How is the pharma industry responsible for my medical records?

Stop letting Stanford Business School people ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322575)

The main problem with those industries he targets is that they're run by the kind of people that his very own Stanford Business School produces. We're talking about managers and executives who have no knowledge of medicine, or the engineering behind energy generation and distribution.

Accountants, economists, marketeers and MBAs have risen to positions of power where they're making decisions about stuff they know absolutely nothing about. And of course the result will be disaster. Once you get beyond making-the-left-column-total-equal-the-right-column-total, accounting becomes a scam. Likewise, economists circle-jerk to theories and graphs that just don't apply in the real world. Marketeers are all about deceiving people to buy products or services that are completely shitty. And MBAs roll all of that scum into one person.

Typically, the only people who have any idea about the products or the services are the engineers and scientists working for the company. They can much better anticipate the costs and benefits of different strategies. They typically care about quality, rather than just producing crock-of-shit financial reports. But whenever they get into a position of power, they have to deal with the fools described in the last paragraph.

So the solution is to clean house. Get rid of the accountants, economists, marketeers and MBAs from power. Put them back to work where they belong. Put people who know what's going on in the executive positions. And then we'll start to see these companies get stuff done, and at least put themselves on the right track to potentially flourish.

Re:Stop letting Stanford Business School people .. (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322651)

Get rid of the accountants, economists, marketeers and MBAs from power. Put them back to work where they belong. Put people who know what's going on in the executive positions.

That's a decent proposal, but also has the problem that you are taking talented people away from the jobs they do best. Someone still has to do the marketing and economic analysis. But sure, a lot of MBAs are simply charlatans, and they should be cut loose. But putting engineers and scientists in management positions doesn't strike me as the best solution.

Re:Stop letting Stanford Business School people .. (4, Funny)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322665)

I'm going to have to take a shower after writing this, but I agree 100% with John C Dvorak on this subject [pcmag.com] .

Re:Stop letting Stanford Business School people .. (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322797)

Thanks for the link. Now I have to agree with you and take a shower also.

healthcare (5, Insightful)

mc moss (1163007) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322589)

"Another business he believes to be ripe for disruption is health care. He complains that the industry seems to innovate much too slowly. The lack of proper electronic medical records and smart âoeclinical decision systemsâ bothers him, as does the slow-moving, bureaucratic nature of clinical trials. He thinks pharmaceutical firms should study the fast âoeknowledge turnsâ achieved by chipmakers, so that the cycles of learning and innovation are accelerated."

I don't think this guy understands how the healthcare industry works. We can implement a change with electronic medical records but when it comes to clinical trials and drug testing, it is not just bureaucracy that slows it down. The very nature of using human subjects as opposed to electronic devices means doing long and thorough testing, and we still don't have a complete picture of how everything fits together in the human body.

Re:healthcare (1)

Ronald Dumsfeld (723277) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323311)

Quite.

I seem to remember some floating-point error with Pentium processors.

I suppose the healthcare equivalent would be the 'wonder drug' Thalidomide.

Relatively govt free? (1)

quickgold192 (1014925) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322655)

If it wasn't for the government's (military's) need to crunch huge amount of numbers in the 60s and 70s, we would be decades behind in terms of computer technology. If I wasn't typing this on a phone I would link a source, but rarely does an industry as big as computing start off "relatively govt free"

Er Wait a Minute... (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322721)

Wasn't Intel recently slammed by the EU for anti-competitive behavior? I guess that's their version of not "slacking"?

Re:Er Wait a Minute... (2, Interesting)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322949)

Yeah, I think they were hit for "paying off" big manufactors NOT to buy competitors products. IMO this isn't slacking though; I'd imagine with all of the bribes and negotiations that took place they would had to have been very pro-active.

Grove's management style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29322739)

Grove is supposed to be a management guru - he's certainly not shy about sharing his opinions - but Business Week has a story mentioning Intel as one of several big companies that headhunters tend to avoid [businessweek.com] when recruiting talent. Seems that Intel in particular has a reputation for instilling a "paranoid", reactive mentality up and down the ladder. Gee, where could they have gotten that from [amazon.com] ?

massive government subsidies (2, Insightful)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 5 years ago | (#29322837)

The computing industry has received massive government subsidies. The Internet, high performance computing, CPU architectures, compiler construction, and plenty more was financed by DARPA and other US government agencies, as well as European and Japanese government function. The subsidies were in the form of research grants, technology transfer from government research labs, among others. Knowledge and technologies were also massively transferred in the form of graduate students, academics, and government researchers coming into the private computing sector.

There's nothing wrong with--it's government doing what it should be doing. But if Andy Grove thinks computing did it all by itself, he's kidding himself.

If other sectors (automotive, energy, transportation, environment, etc.) are supposed to catch up, the government needs to invest massively in basic and applied research, fellowships, and government research labs in those areas.

Grove is ignoring history (1)

Salamander (33735) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323255)

The fact is that government did move to prop up many mainframe makers, and even more so with the makers of supercomputers which long ago displaced mainframes as the largest and most expensive systems. It's still happening today. Go look at the Top 500 [top500.org] lists, and you'll see that practically all of the top systems are government-owned. Thinking Machines would never have gotten off the ground without extensive government support, Cray/SGI wouldn't have survived the 90s, and let's not forget DARPA's contributions. Government has contributed positively to innovation in computing, not caused it to stagnate. If the government had shown any inclination to get involved in the auto industry the way they have been involved in computing, we'd all be driving all-electric or hydrogen-fueled cars today, supported by an appropriate recharging/refueling infrastructure and complemented by a robust cargo/mass-transit infrastructure. Grove's an idiot.

Re:Grove is ignoring history (2, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#29323599)

Lets not forget that IBM was involved in a massive, government funded, data processing project in Europe in the 1940s

On a less flippant note, the microprocessor was a direct product of the US nuclear missile program. Nobody was pushing for miniaturised computers until the government put billions into making it happen so they could fit a guidance computer on a missile.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/05/tob_minuteman_1/print.html

Minuteman II's navigation system was nearly one quarter the size of Minuteman I with approximately two and a half times as much memory. Midway through the decade, the Minuteman project was responsible for about 20 per cent of all IC sales and had become the largest purchaser of semiconductor microcircuits. While the American government's direct contribution of integrated circuit R&D is arguably modest, it was undeniably the technology's sugar-daddy.

But that is the trick to being a good capitalist; rewrite history and claim you've never received any help from the government, and it was the 'genius of the market' which made you rich. Don't be afraid to wag your fingers at any other government subsidy though - because its all evil socialism!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?