HP Forum Archive 15

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

HP philosophy Message #1 Posted by Joe Edwards on 30 Jan 2006, 9:08 p.m. Just a quick comment. I opened up my first HP 41c today and was both impressed and unimpressed. The machine is gorgeous, but wow, it is really limited on features compared to modern calcs. I guess this shouldn't be a suprise. The suprise came in the way of the manual. My old 32s and 15c manuals are pretty nice, but the manual of the 41c practically spilled over with HP's love and respect for their customers. I haven't seen a manual like that since, well...ever. Where and when did our companies lose their respect for the customers? I look at the new HP calculator manuals and just shake my head, especially after having read just the first few pages of the HP 41c owner's manual. Was HP just a special case? After seeing this and reading all of your stories, it really hit home that I was born about 15 years too late. :) Joe

Re: HP philosophy Message #2 Posted by Les Bell on 30 Jan 2006, 10:08 p.m., in response to message #1 by Joe Edwards I'm with you 100% on this one. The biggest problem with low-end calculators today is the lack, and poor quality, of documentation. The 17 pages (excluding TOC and foreign-language stuff) that came with the 6S I bought for my son was an embarrassment. At least it was better than the slip of paper that accompanied the Casio which replaced it. What's more, I suspect that anyone who attempted to write a good guide for this class of machine would fall foul of the inconsistencies and poor design which characterise them. Those calcs are nearly unlearnable and, for the same reason, nearly udocumentable. Things for HP seemed to go pear-shaped with the introduction of the 48 series, for a couple of reasons: a) the manuals have no section which explains the philosophy and underlying principles of the machine. I only "grokked" the 48 after reading a comp.sys.hp48 post by Joe Horn (from memory), which introduced some RPL concepts for the 28S. If that had been in the manual (and some of it was in the 28 manuals) life would have been much easier. b) the sheer volume of information is much larger. Providing humorous examples and in-depth explanation of the functions in the 48GX - let alone the 49 series - would give rise to a huge (and expensive to develop) manual. Splitting off the AUR was a first step, and PDF's are another step to reducing costs. However, the typographical style of the 48 manuals was an incredible turn-off, reminding me of nothing so much as the maths textbooks used in Scottish schools in the 1960's, and which seemed to date back to the 1890's. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd much prefer a machine of mid-range capability with an excellent manual, to a machine of indeterminate capability because of poor documentation. Best, --- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au]

Re: HP philosophy Message #3 Posted by Namir on 30 Jan 2006, 10:08 p.m., in response to message #1 by Joe Edwards HP did a fantastic job with the manuals of the vintage calculators. They were multicolor and showed the gold and blue shift keys, the red of the LED digits. Also the older manuals included more detailed math, which I often use as a reference. The more calculator produced the less impressive the manuals were. I guess this related to the decreasing calculator costs too.

Re: HP philosophy Message #4 Posted by Howard Owen on 30 Jan 2006, 10:55 p.m., in response to message #1 by Joe Edwards The 41C documentation taught me how to program. I had seen an Apple ][ and a Commodore Pet, but I didn't know the first thing about BASIC. The excellent "Owner's Handbook and Programming Guide" was all I needed to break through from nearly complete ignorance into a fairly good grasp of how computers were programmed. (I actually didn't know what a good grounding it was until later, when assembly programming and FORTH on the Apple came easily to me.) Documentation, or the lack of it, on the low-end machines notwithstanding, I don't fault HP for trying to produce good documentation for the RPL machines. The 28S manuals are pretty good. But the complexity of the machine had increased to the point where they couldn't give the same kind of general overview. The 48G saw the publication of the AUR, a fine piece of work. It even tries to reproduce that signature HP method of teaching programming through the use of examples. But the language is much, much harder, so the tutotial has to spend most of its time discussing the details rather than how they fit together. That philosophy that Les says is lacking in the manuals is actually present in "HP-28 Insights" by William Wickes. It gives a designer's eye view of the machine. It's not particularly helpful in learning how to operate the machine, but it does give you an excellent idea of where the principle architect of RPL was coming from. But the HP-48 version of this work was two volumes, so you really ended up needing to read four volumes of not-so-easy prose to appreciate the attempt HP made to deliver documentation of a quality similar to the best of what had come before. And in my opinion, the attempt failed, precisely because the job was made so much harder by the explosion in complexity that RPL brought with it. When I got my 41C, I spent at least six hours every day reading that manual and playing with the calculator. Inside a month, I had a pretty good grasp of what the basic machine was capable of. It's been seven months since I bought an HP-49g+. I haven't concentrated my time on it, or on the 48s I've bought, in the same way as for that first 41, but I've spent plenty of time nonetheless. I am nowhere close to knowing the whole machine the way I knew my first 41. That's not the documentation's fault, however. The new AUR for the 49G+ is built on the old 48 AUR, with lots of additions from the Metakernel manual and other places. There's a terrific little User's Guide by Dr. Gilberto Urroz that gives a methematical introduction to the operation of the machine, and a larger User's manual in PDF form that fleshes the guide out nicely. The documentation is well organized and comprehensive. But the machine is just too darn complicated to grasp in a short time. I keep learning new stuff the longer I play with the 49g+. This is a great delight for me, since I'm doing this as a hobby, i.e. for recreation. But I can certainly see why TI won the educational market with its simpler machines. HP probably got a lock on the mathematics and computer science geek market, but gave up the rest with these powerful, but difficult machines. I'm just glad I'm in the target demographic. 8) Regards, Howard P.S. Don't worry about being born "too late." You get to partake of the best of the past and the present. And you have a longer time to try to influence the future. Good luck!

Re: HP philosophy Message #5 Posted by Garth Wilson on 31 Jan 2006, 2:02 a.m., in response to message #1 by Joe Edwards I have tried to model my own product manual-writing after what I found in the manuals for my HP41cx and 71B and some of the supporting products, as much as I've been able. It was amazing when I got those, that I could start at the beginning, read right through, find things clearly laid out and understand them well, and gradually get to the end and feel like I really knew the product, without ever having gotten to the "hard part." Several years ago when I was at WESCON (an electronics industry convention), I saw a man probably in his late 40's exclaim to an older man, "Aren't you professor so-and-so?" (I don't remember the name.) He had had him in his EE classes in the 60's. Soon into the chat, the older man said, "That was when students knew how to write!" and lamented that young people today don't.

Re: HP philosophy Message #6 Posted by Eric Smith on 31 Jan 2006, 10:57 a.m., in response to message #1 by Joe Edwards Quote: I opened up my first HP 41c today and was both impressed and unimpressed. The machine is gorgeous, but wow, it is really limited on features compared to modern calcs. But compare it to the other calculators that were available in 1979. If you buy a "modern calc" now, how do you think it will compare to calculators made in 2032?

Re: HP philosophy Message #7 Posted by Joe Edwards on 31 Jan 2006, 11:55 a.m., in response to message #6 by Eric Smith I really didn't think I needed to add a caveat to my post. I am sorry, but I thought the body of my post pretty summed up the fact that I am very impressed with the 41c. Of course it is short on features, it was made in 1980. My main point had more to do with the difference in the additude between the HP of then and now, based simply on the comparison of the 41 manuals and the current calculator manuals...ie the 33s,etc. Sure the 33s manual isn't difficult to read (isn't it basically the 32sii manual?), but the 41c manual is so much better. Just the introduction expressing how important the customers were appreciated back them almost brought a tear to my eye...almost. :) I wasn't bashing the 41c. I was quite aware of its liimitations when I bought the thing. No insult intended. Joe Quote: But compare it to the other calculators that were available in 1979. If you buy a "modern calc" now, how do you think it will compare to calculators made in 2032?

Re: HP philosophy Message #8 Posted by Jan on 31 Jan 2006, 2:46 p.m., in response to message #1 by Joe Edwards I never owned a 41 model (I think about buying a 2nd hand though) but to my knowledge the 41 is not that modest when it comes to its features. It may not be a match to let's say a 48, but especially the CX has many functions and features, not to mention enough memory for even more extended software packages. The point is that you can't tell that from the keyboard however: many functions are categorised in catalogs from which the user can select them. They can also, when a function is used very often, be assigned to a specific key. In "user" mode, that specific key then corresponds to the assigned function. As far as the HP philosophy is concerned, I would say that around the early 90's HP's attitude towards calculators and their buyers has changed gradually. I cannot tell if a similar change in attitude also applies to their other products, but at least the physical appearence of the simple test and measurement equipment (now with agilent) also underwent a negative trend (they looked somewhat cheaper, the tank-like construction gradually made way to a lower- end casing-style and appearence). After the TM equipment division(s) was(were) turned into a separate company under the name of Agilent (the true heir of the old "HP-way" in my point of view), quality matters at HP really went down the drain to my point of view. With China becomming the main "production facility" for electronic equipment in general, I see no signs for improvement in this respect. Not a reason to dislike the chinese but rather the CEO's and shareholders of our western companies that cannot resist outsourcing labour in the far-east for short term profit.

Re: HP philosophy Message #9 Posted by John Noble on 31 Jan 2006, 5:35 p.m., in response to message #8 by Jan Quote: With China becomming the main "production facility" for electronic equipment in general, I see no signs for improvement in this respect. Not a reason to dislike the chinese but rather the CEO's and shareholders of our western companies that cannot resist outsourcing labour in the far-east for short term profit. I don't think outsourcing is the problem -- how many beloved Voyagers were made in Singapore? Lots, and I don't think most people question their quality vs. Brazilian or American manufactured calcs. If you want to blame anyone, go ask the bean counters of that era how hard they squeezed the engineers on the bill of materials and tooling costs. Then again, it just might be possible that competition and a changing market forced them to squeeze so hard. If the market doesn't want to pay for that kind of quality anymore, then you can either stop production and find other things to do with your capital, keep making the same thing and go bust eventually, or cut costs and keep trying to make a profit with something people will pay for. Blame the "throwaway" consumer culture for caring about cost over all other considerations (except maybe fashion), if you want the real culprit.

Re: HP philosophy Message #10 Posted by Dave Shaffer on 31 Jan 2006, 5:55 p.m., in response to message #9 by John Noble Some more (overall, general) philosophy tangentially relevant to comments about outsourcing to China: I think we (the US, at least) are in the process of cutting our own throat in the longer term. Yes, Chinese products may be lower quality at the moment, but I think they will learn to do much better. (They already are: the new Boeing airplane will have significant "made-in-China" content.) Remember (some of us, at least!) back to the 50's and 60's. "Made in Japan" was synonymous with real junk (much worse than the middle-of-the-road Chinese stuff of today). Nowadays, that Japanese "junk" is on the verge of driving two of the largest, most succesful American enterprises (Ford and GM) right over the cliff. The Japanese learned to make quality products, generally now preferred (Sony, Toyota, Lexus, etc.) over many American "equivalents."

Re: HP philosophy Message #11 Posted by GE on 1 Feb 2006, 8:56 a.m., in response to message #10 by Dave Shaffer I have been talking with my brother who is manager of a small R&D team for TV decoders and communicaion devices at some european manufacturer.[nl) He says that production (fabrication or 'fab' for short) has been send way far there a long time ago, with some "abnormal" situations (his words) for a few products still built in Europe. Bean counters are working on this, rest assured. The point, however, is that there is a tend by which R&D itself is being outsourced in those far away countries, with no more knowledge retained in the original country. This worries me a lot more, as what do we have to sell apart from our supposedly superior research capability ? The only thing left here is marketing and sales. The only problem is who is going to buy your products ? Your former employees have just been fired and they don't have the cash needed. Their relatives tighten the budget to support the family. Overseas suppliers now know how to produce better products (remember now THEY lead on the R&D side, thanks to us !), and cheaper too (they don't need our brands, as our customers now value more the bottom line past any oher criteria). Believe me in 10 years I'll be working in a branch which CANNOT be localised overseas (like hair cutting). Others will die. I have children and this doesn't really makes me laugh. Well, not REALLY... Good luck to you all.

Re: HP philosophy Message #12 Posted by bill platt on 1 Feb 2006, 10:55 a.m., in response to message #11 by GE Yes, whether Europe or the US, the outsourcing is major. I realized how much this was so, when I woreked in Germany for 2 months in 1998. I was looking forward to buying a pair of Leitz binoculars there. My father had bought many well made optics there in the 1960s. Well, to my astonishment, the camera store did not even stock "made in Germany" equipment! I have an easier time buying european products here inthe US than I did in europe! Who will the customers be, in 20 years? The Chinese, naturally! The same as U.S. economic growth up until the 1970's.

Re: HP philosophy Message #13 Posted by Jan on 1 Feb 2006, 11:16 a.m., in response to message #11 by GE I agree with all reactions to my response, they all address an element of truth in my opinion. I personally think that bean counters and outsourcing cannot be seen as 2 separate things however: they are 2 sides of the same medal so to say. Which of the 2 came first is even hard to tell. Did outsourcing and product influx from the far east raise a demand for bean counting by our domestic industries in order to remain competitive or is outsourcing the culmination of the efforts of the beancounters? Hard to tell. One thing is for sure to me: it is all a direct consequence of the demand for short term profit by the management and shareholders of our companies. Where it will end I don't know but I am not too confident w.r.t. the future of our western economy. The point is that the economic policy of the moment bears some elements in itself that could be called selfdestructive and nothing else. Industries outsource production and development activities in order to raise the profit margins of their sales in western countries and to remain competitive against manufacturers from low-wage countries. However, by the outsourcing of activities jobs are lost in the western world (the replacement of which is difficult), reducing the national income and the amount of money that citizens of western countries can spend. This, in fact, counteracts at least some of the initial objectives behind the outsourcing process: making more money from sales in the western world. In addition to that, the combined trade and budget deficit of some western countries and the way this is being dealt with, is quite alarming. In fact, by lending USD to the west so that we can buy their products, the chinese are financing their own export: a situation that defies all laws and basic principles of economics. I simply refuse to believe that such a situation is sustainable. With respect to R&D I also believe we are not doing enough to stay ahead of wouldbe industrial nations in Asia. We still have a hughe advantage over them but that advantage is not that selfevident anymore. The no longer unthinkable disappearence of R&D activities in the west (including even basic research) is, in my point of view, also a cultural drainage with potentially far reaching (social) consequences. In conclusion: it is time for the western world to wake up!

Re: HP philosophy Message #14 Posted by bill platt on 1 Feb 2006, 12:00 p.m., in response to message #13 by Jan We will not wake up. Empires rise and fall. We are falling. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #15 Posted by Howard Owen on 1 Feb 2006, 12:30 p.m., in response to message #14 by bill platt Please forgive me stirring the pot in an off-topic thread. Perhaps it would be heretical to mention that along with potent - and soon to be more potent - competitive industries, China and India and the rest of the developing world also bring large markets to the party? I realize they are more or less protected markets at the moment, but that can and will change over time, simply because their domestic industries won't be able to keep up with demand once the ball really gets rolling. Then there's this other small factor called "innovation." All countries with adequate R&D and industrial capacity have an equal chance at redefining what the world perceives as "valuable." This is particularly true the more economic activity becomes software based. And no country can maintain a monopoly on innovation over the long term. That means both West and East have roughly equal chances at creating, and being the first exploiters of, innovation. As markets open up around the world, that means that demand for brain power will rise everywhere. Finally, the advantage India and China (and Russia, and Ukraine and so forth) have now with respect to labor costs won't last. Already India is seeing competition from Russia in IT outsourcing, for example. There's no doubt that the rise of economic power in the East, particularly in China, will challenge entrenched economic power in Europe and the US. However, that expansion is a two-edged sword. And refusing to participate in the markets that emerge from the power shift would simply doom an economy to protectionist isolation, and thus to eventual economic irrelevance.

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #16 Posted by bill platt on 1 Feb 2006, 1:43 p.m., in response to message #15 by Howard Owen You are correct, and the large players for the most part aready saw that a long time ago, which is why Boeng is there, and GM etc. But even if we innovate, the empire is still sinking. The question America has to grapple with is, can we be content to *not* be the superpower? Or will we destroy ourselves in wars while attempting to maintain control? Edited: 1 Feb 2006, 1:43 p.m.

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #17 Posted by Joe Edwards on 1 Feb 2006, 5:16 p.m., in response to message #16 by bill platt Quote: But even if we innovate, the empire is still sinking. The question America has to grapple with is, can we be content to *not* be the superpower? Or will we destroy ourselves in wars while attempting to maintain control? Pretty much the case in my opinion. If we can accept that fact that we are going to turn into the equivilant of England, Australia, etc then all might be okay, but my concern is that we won't be willing to accept this fate and will destroy ourselves. By the way, my wife and I have jobs that we will keep (hopefully) for life. She is a clinical (up and growing field) pharmacist/facuilty and I will be teaching math. It might not be grand, but hey...

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #18 Posted by Les Bell on 1 Feb 2006, 7:50 p.m., in response to message #17 by Joe Edwards Quote: If we can accept that fact that we are going to turn into the equivilant of England, Australia, etc then all might be okay, but my concern is that we won't be willing to accept this fate and will destroy ourselves. Huh? The British Empire has had its day, but the Australian Empire hasn't had its day in the sun yet. And I dare say there are some British readers who would opine that they are glad that their culture hasn't declined to the same extent as America's! Yours in unbounded ethnocentricity, --- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au]

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #19 Posted by Joe Edwards on 1 Feb 2006, 9:07 p.m., in response to message #18 by Les Bell I believe you are reading into my statement. When I state that we are going to turn in the equivilant of England and Australia (maybe Canada too), I MEANT that we would reach a state where we wouldn't be superpowers, nothing more. I ACTUALLY hold high regard for those folks in England, and especially those in Australia. If it weren't for the strict immigration laws and my wife's family I would jump ship and live out my days, happily, "down under". Quote: Huh? The British Empire has had its day, but the Australian Empire hasn't had its day in the sun yet. And I dare say there are some British readers who would opine that they are glad that their culture hasn't declined to the same extent as America's! Yours in unbounded ethnocentricity, --- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Edited: 2 Feb 2006, 8:37 a.m.

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #20 Posted by Howard Owen on 1 Feb 2006, 11:04 p.m., in response to message #18 by Les Bell Oh, come on, Les. "The sun never sets on the Australian empire." Remember that? Remember Bunker Hill and the War of 1812 when we threw the Australians out of our part of North America? I mean, OK, we helped you out in WWII when the Germans were bombing you and all, and you do make good calculators, but don't ask us to forget our own War of Independence! Remember the Boston Foster's Party!

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #21 Posted by GE on 1 Feb 2006, 4:00 p.m., in response to message #15 by Howard Owen True, BUT -- R&D is currently being outsourced to our economic "ennemies" of the future. Actually the process has been under way for years. Hard to fight if they are bigger, richer AND smarter.

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #22 Posted by Bernhard on 1 Feb 2006, 5:43 p.m., in response to message #21 by GE Q: Hard to fight if they are bigger, richer AND smarter. True, but observre the "if..." It is very likely that China / India / etc. won't be able to ever reach the current wealth of the West. Most likely, they will run into the brick wall of depletion of natural resources before they even get close in terms of wealth. Personally, I even doubt the Western investors will ever get a total return of investment from their China endavours. There are huge factories in China, lots of them, built with Western capitalist's money, and they turn out shiploads of low-quality, low-margin products, that will soon end in a landfill. Scarce raw materials being turned into garbage, by the way. Scarce raw materials which could have been turned into high quality, high-margin products. And it is the latter kind of products which build the wealth of nations. Seen from this point of view China is on a road to failure. I think the next big stock market crash will come from there. Anyone who knows the Club of Rome report "Limits of Growth" can conclude that in a world depleted of resources, only those nations will survive which can project military power to those places where the last resources are located, secure their transport, and at the same time transform their society to a post-industrial form where wealth is mainly created by applying human skill and craftmanship instead of wasting resources and energy carriers. It even may be possible to sustain some limited form of a technological society this way. The main difference will be that products will be made to last, will contain a lot of human labour, and less machine labour, and will be very expensive, even those products which are needed for daily life. And they will employ relatively low-tech methods which can be sustained locally. We can only hope the sustainable technological level will be better than the 1960s. Early 1970s maybe. I doubt that such a society could sustain multi-billion-dollar 90nm wafer fabs (and their equivalent, highly complicated processes, in any other technical field). Maybe this will bring back the quality of Classic HP pocket calculators, who knows ? A wafer fab for a five micron PMOS metal gate technology possibly could be sustained even under the chaotic but interesting conditions of such a future society which lacks energy, ressources, and capital, but has lots of creative brains who will need to use whatever tools and machines are left over from the industrialized era and can be repaired again and again. Bernhard

Re: HP^H^H Economic philosophy Message #23 Posted by Howard Owen on 1 Feb 2006, 11:19 p.m., in response to message #21 by GE The problem with that analysis is the implied idea that those countries wouldn't develop their own R&D if we didn't outsource some of ours to them. China and India will be "up and coming" whether we do R&D here or there. The reasons have to do with increased communication, liberalization of their economies, shrewd policy on the part of their governments and the energy and dedication of their peoples. In addition to wanting to be "on the ground" in the midst of new and emerging markets, US and European R&D is going there to take advantage of those same factors.

Re: HP philosophy Message #24 Posted by e.young on 1 Feb 2006, 5:05 p.m., in response to message #14 by bill platt great societies do not fall from without, but from within

Re: HP philosophy Message #25 Posted by Ron Allen on 1 Feb 2006, 7:22 p.m., in response to message #24 by e.young Don't exactly understand how all this ECONOMIC DOOMSDAY talk got left on HP's philosophical doorstep, but the REAL contributor to the collapse of the empire will be the pessimistic, failure-oriented scientists and engineers employed to invent and to lead in an optimistic society. No country in the past century has provided the freedom to create the way ours has. Smarter than us? How is "smart" measured? Not by how well one performs on math tests. Smart is how well and how quickly one innovates and adapts to changing conditions in a "Future Shocked" world, working with the tools and skills available. Granted, there are excessive numbers of bean counters with too much authority to trim away the craftsmanship of high quality products AND too many engineers with the attitude that marketing is equivalent to prostitution. The strongest organizations in this world long after us will be those that can balance the scales whereby they can truthfully say that they operate under the "Total Marketing Concept." As I recall from reading about the philosophy of "TMC" in graduate studies, the market invented us, not the other way around. Just as freedom of speech is protected, there is no guarantee of an audience; and our freedom to invent does not CREATE a market. We have the FREEDOM to RESPOND to the market. SMART!

Re: HP philosophy Message #26 Posted by Howard Owen on 1 Feb 2006, 7:52 p.m., in response to message #25 by Ron Allen I had a friend once who always reacted to pessimistic talk in the same way. "We're all dooommed" he would croak, "it's just no use doing anyyyyything..." It would usually crack up the doomsayer and everyone else around, and was a nice antdote for that sort of thing. 8)

Re: HP philosophy Message #27 Posted by GE on 2 Feb 2006, 4:17 a.m., in response to message #26 by Howard Owen Well, if your day work is to actually research, you tend to find more than if your work is to do marketing research or advertising. Such reasearch work is being destroyed NOW. If it doesn't exist anymore, who is going to innovate? Don't tell me some bright mind can devise devices the complexity of current computers in her free time and budget. As for the fact that transferring R&D knowledge and skills to others may have no impact on the long term because they could reinvent it anyway, let me tell you a small tale. In 1859 Bernhard Riemann published an article within which he stated his famous 'Riemann Hypothesis'. When he died, his maid burnt most of his notes, not knowing it could contain valuable material. The only problem is that Riemann had said he had some ideas to prove his Hypothesis, and (contrary to Fermat and his last theorem), it is believed that could be true (When Siegel went to Germany in the 1960 to read the remains of Rieman's notes, he found there a formula to calculate the zeros of the Zeta function that no-one had ever thought of). NO ONE has proved the hypothesis since 1859... So not everything can be invented twice in less than 100 years. So : 1. R&D results have value 2. You can never be sure that you'll invent something big in the next 100 years

Re: HP philosophy Message #28 Posted by bill platt on 2 Feb 2006, 9:38 a.m., in response to message #27 by GE Excellent anecdote. I had forgotten about it. The Black Adder had a spoof of this once, if I remember correctly. Though I think it was to do with Johnson's dictionary.

Re: HP philosophy Message #29 Posted by Howard Owen on 2 Feb 2006, 11:11 a.m., in response to message #27 by GE You aren't seriously suggesting that secrets along the lines of how to exploit weaknesses in a competitor's product are in the same class as the Riemann Hypothesis? Certainly there are secrets, then there are secrets. But nobody is going to get a leg up in solving problems in the class of the Riemann Hypothesis through outsourced R&D from a western technology company. As a matter of fact, the odds of someone in China or India solving that conundrum are better than anyone in Europe or the U.S. doing so, simply by virtue of of a larger educated population. (The CIA world fact book doesn't have breakdowns of higher education specialization, but the relative numbers of people with mathematical training can be inferred from the overall number of persons with some education. Here are the numbers for population * literacy rate for China, India and the U.S.: China: 1,187,439,255 India: 642,757,311 U.S 286,862,110) Regards, Howard

Re: HP philosophy Message #30 Posted by GE on 3 Feb 2006, 6:32 a.m., in response to message #29 by Howard Owen You're right, but it is even worse because you forgot to factor the percentage of people in each case who are doing research. So : U.S 286,862,110 & research 'bean-counter-ized' => 0% research, result 286,862,110 x 0% = 0 people China: 1,187,439,255 & consciousness of the need for R&d => 0.1% research, result 1,187,439,255 x 0.1% = 1,187,439 people And I don't agree that R&D is always a simple matter. For example, IC fabrication and magnetic storage R&D relies on quantum theory (see IBM's facility in Switzerland), and this is not easy (well, it was not last time I tried !!).

Re: HP philosophy Message #31 Posted by bill platt on 3 Feb 2006, 9:27 a.m., in response to message #30 by GE The bigest research activity in the U.S. is the export of research skills and techniques. How? From University graduate science and engineering programs. Most of them are more than 50% foreigners. We do not have a market for american PhD's in engineering, but the chinese and indians do. So our professors teach whoever is willing to pay.

Re: HP philosophy Message #32 Posted by e. young on 3 Feb 2006, 3:07 p.m., in response to message #25 by Ron Allen you need to stop looking at things through rose colored glasses. Take a look aroung you. Unfortunatley, we have become fat dumb and happy. I agree that no country in the history of the world has been as creative or productive as the U.S. The massive brain drain that is happening does not bode well for the future. This is a culture that does not value engineers or scientists. You can quote theory all you want from the ivory tower of graduate school, but what connection to reality does that have? The truth is that engineers are responsible for a huge part of the prosperity and power that the U.S. has, NOT a bunch of marketing or business majors. Face facts: a society obsessed with hedonism that has little regard for engineering, and that does not produce and retain talented engineers is in for trouble. If engineers are pessimistic it is because we have to deal with clueless business majors and marketeers.

Re: HP philosophy Message #33 Posted by Joe Edwards on 3 Feb 2006, 4:30 p.m., in response to message #32 by e. young I see this at school every day. There are droves of business and marketing folks who think they just own the campus. Talk to one and you will see how they truly feel about engineers and scientists...they are labor and nothing more. /sigh Quote: you need to stop looking at things through rose colored glasses. Take a look aroung you. Unfortunatley, we have become fat dumb and happy. I agree that no country in the history of the world has been as creative or productive as the U.S. The massive brain drain that is happening does not bode well for the future. This is a culture that does not value engineers or scientists. You can quote theory all you want from the ivory tower of graduate school, but what connection to reality does that have? The truth is that engineers are responsible for a huge part of the prosperity and power that the U.S. has, NOT a bunch of marketing or business majors. Face facts: a society obsessed with hedonism that has little regard for engineering, and that does not produce and retain talented engineers is in for trouble. If engineers are pessimistic it is because we have to deal with clueless business majors and marketeers.

Re: HP philosophy Message #34 Posted by bill platt on 3 Feb 2006, 4:43 p.m., in response to message #32 by e. young Well, most of the world, engineer or businessman, is near-sighted and provincial. The smartest or most successful engineers are the ones that understand business and have business savvy. There is no value to "engineering for engineering's sake." Engineering is an inherently business-oriented profession. You have to have something economically useful to offer, or there is no point in the exercise. That some young arrogant punks in bachelor's business school think of engineering in low terms is nothing but sheer ignorance. The smart ones will either already know, or figure out, that engineering is a means to an end, as is a business degree, and that good ideas know no boundaries. Edited: 3 Feb 2006, 4:44 p.m.

Re: HP philosophy Message #35 Posted by e.young on 3 Feb 2006, 5:01 p.m., in response to message #34 by bill platt agreed

Re: HP philosophy Message #36 Posted by Howard Owen on 3 Feb 2006, 5:00 p.m., in response to message #34 by bill platt Quote: That some young arrogant punks in bachelor's business school think of engineering in low terms is nothing but sheer ignorance. The smart ones will either already know, or figure out, that engineering is a means to an end, as is a business degree, and that good ideas know no boundaries. Bingo! The ones that truly rule the roost know that both approaches to reality are required to be successful. In economic terms, a gadget is just a lump of plastic, glass and trace metals without a market. And markets have nothing to trade without the products of human imagination. But bridging the gap between the two takes even more imagination - the power to put yourself in the shoes of someone who sees the world very differently from you. I find one fact about people helps me stretch my imagination in that way. People almost never think what they are doing is evil or useless. Humans generally have a story they tell themselves about their lives that has them in the center, pursuing noble goals, or at least being well justified in pursuing less-than-noble ones. When confronted with someone whom you may despise, ask yourself this question: "what story is this person telling herself about her life?" The answers may surprise you. They may contain some kernels of truth you have overlooked. Or else the rest of the world really is populated by complete jerks. Yeah, that's it. 8) Regards, Howard

Re: HP philosophy Message #37 Posted by John Noble on 4 Feb 2006, 12:54 a.m., in response to message #36 by Howard Owen Quote: Or else the rest of the world really is populated by complete jerks. Yeah, that's it. 8) Howard, like everyone else, you are entitled to my opinion. As an aside, I don't know if I like the fact that all of this off-topic (but very thoughtful and interesting) discussion is hanging off one of my comments 'way up-thread. See? Another example of the truth of this statement: Quote: Humans generally have a story they tell themselves about their lives that has them in the center, pursuing noble goals, or at least being well justified in pursuing less-than-noble ones. All of my goals are "noble" by definition. :-P

Re: HP philosophy Message #38 Posted by Howard Owen on 4 Feb 2006, 1:17 a.m., in response to message #37 by John Noble Quote: All of my goals are "noble" by definition. :-P Hah! I guess it would be useless to belabor the obvious point that "noble goals" is distinct from "Noble's goals?" I thought so. 8) Regards, Howard

Re: HP philosophy Message #39 Posted by Wayne Brown on 6 Feb 2006, 12:08 a.m., in response to message #34 by bill platt Quote: There is no value to "engineering for engineering's sake." Well, I'd say that depends on who is making the evaluations. I happen to value "engineering for engineering's sake" very highly indeed. For instance, many years ago I read an article by a business analyst who was criticizing HP's marketing techniques. He said that too many of HP's decisions were made by engineers who were more interested in building and playing with cool toys than with products that would sell well. That article came out before I owned any HP products, and was a key factor in my decision to become an HP customer. In general, I nearly always value the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake above that which is sought for practical purposes. That's why the mathematician G. H. Hardy is one of my heroes. In his "Mathematician's Apology," he said "...that very little of mathematics is useful practically, and that that little is comparatively dull" and "I have never done anything useful. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world." (Much of his work in number theory did turn out to be very useful later, but he had no way of knowing that at the time.) Hardy also said, "Here's to pure mathematics. May it never have any use!" Generally, the more "useful" or "practical" a discovery or invention is, the less it interests me.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall