61–70 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of just criticising, maybe you could suggest how parent should improve? I'm always very confused about what personal pronoun to use for organisations or companies.
The singular impersonal "it" when talking about Google as a corporate entity (its component personnel would likely be "Googlers"). So "Google pays its taxes" and "Google doesn't pay its taxes".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of just criticising, maybe you could suggest how parent should improve? I'm always very confused about what personal pronoun to use for organisations or companies.
The singular impersonal "it" when talking about Google as a corporate entity (its component personnel would likely be "Googlers"). So "Google pays its taxes" and "Google doesn't pay its taxes".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since when is Google a he? Perhaps it is some quirk of your language that makes the direct translation take masculine form? Edit: Sorry if this came off as rude, was not intended.
Instead of just criticising, maybe you could suggest how parent should improve? I'm always very confused about what personal pronoun to use for organisations or companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just pointing out that the reality is more complicated. The research wasn't "publicly available", rather it was licensed (exclusively) from Stanford. There is legislation that applies to the ownership of federally funded research, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act It's also worth pointing out that before this was passed in 1980 federally funded research was typically owned by the gov't.
The research is publicly available. You can go read it right now and learn from it. You're confusing the difference between the research they did being publicly available, and Stanford holding a patent on PageRank . http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf
The title of this piece is terrible, and detracts from what is actually a thoughtful discussion. Mazzucato points out how the government is actually good at funding very high risk work, with a low chance of pay off (think DARPA research in the US). She does say the sentence used in the title, but the context is very important: What this means is that we have socialized the risk of innovation but privatised the reward…
Mazzucato provides no real evidence the government is good at funding commercially viable innovation. If you look into the details the two examples she offers were more blind luck than thoughtful investment. While it's easier to make the case for basic research the governments attempts to sponsor commercial innovation have almost always ended in failure or turned into subsidies for politically connected companies and…
Without disagreeing with your point I have to point out that beyond basic research the government has also successfully provided infrastructure for commercial innovation with things like the Internet, GPS and nuclear power. It tends to accomplish this without really trying.
Mazzucato gave an interesting talk [1] about this to the Long Now Foundation back in March 2014. [1] http://longnow.org/seminars/02014/mar/24/entrepreneurial-sta...
I so very much hate socialism. The state, with the money it took from all of us through taxes is presented as a benefactor because it gives small amounts of those money back to research. And she wants the state to have more share from successful research. The state, any state, is a very bad administrator of funds, because the so called state are basically a bunch of people spending other peoples money on things that…
I'd feel less comfortable without NASA, NIH, and DARPA, since I have benefitted a great deal from the work they sponsored. I doubt very much I would have had those benefits so soon without these grossly inefficient agencies that have no idea what they are doing carelessly spending other people's money on creating the space age, the Internet age, and the age of genomics respectively. I don't believe for a second that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NSF grant played a minor role but the OP is exagerating it's importance to support her political viewpoint of how the world should be run. More background here: http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/jul/09/bar... Also the $504,000 SBIC investment in Apple actually returned $44 million apparently to it's sponsoring bank. In fact the program is exactly what the author is against as the frequent losses e…
What if Apple had failed ? This is what she is trying to say. The risk is taken by the public. And the rewards mainly goes to the private entities.
From the look of it, the author is trying to make it seem like the public funds it, and the private people reap all the benefits. Weird scenarios aside (such as the NSF research grant stuff), we should see the "public" in the same light as all the other investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Taxes are paid out of those new dollars Interestingly, here in Belgium, the press often states that Google pay his taxes as requested by the law. And that Google have some very expert accountant who read the law in suach a way that those taxes are close to zero. I'm afraid Google doesn't pay his taxes like we, the tax payers, think it should... Of course, that's totally proof-less, but well, I've heard that quite…
Since when is Google a he? Perhaps it is some quirk of your language that makes the direct translation take masculine form? Edit: Sorry if this came off as rude, was not intended.
This clued me in as to why someone might call google 'he.'