After the end of World War II, Kelly put together a team of scientists to develop a solid-state semiconductor switch to replace the problematic vacuum tube.The team would use some of the advances in semiconductor research during the war that had made radar possible.
Hrm. Odd, they specifically cite government funded vacuum-tube computing devices as the basis for their improvement, as well as preliminary semiconductor research. They basically improved upon a design already developed by (gasp) our government! But let's read on:
In the 1950s and 1960s, most U.S. companies chose to focus their attentions on the military market in producing transistor products.
It appears that the companies that developed the transistor needed government resources to maintain profitability. Interesting, no?
But, before you quote mine me AGAIN, I didn't say individual scientists didn't make leaps, I said the vast majority of leaps made REQUIRE government resources to develop AND realize. They are two very distinct and difficult things to achieve.The vast majority of private companies cannot maintain profitability while researching cutting edge techonolgies. The companies you site spend the majority of their budgets improving on established designs.
Anyone with the smarts and the grades can get into graduate school and get a PhD as long as they are willing to do the work and pay the tuition.
You're right, however, let's take a look at where the funding comes from for all those schools. Is it tuition? Don't be daft. Is it corporate funding? A little bit. The majority? You guessed it: government grants. Are you for pulling state/federal funding to universities?
Are you serously trying to say that Bell needed government largess to maintain profitability? (Now if you were talking about Archer Daniels Midlands I would be forced to agree, but not Bell)
Odd, they specifically cite government funded vacuum-tube computing
Again, vacuum tubes were NOT invented by the government, and without WWII would have undoubtedly been developed privately anyway.
You guessed it: government grants. Are you for pulling state/federal funding to universities?
One it is NOT government funding in all "institutions of higher learning" Harvard has an enormous endowment, and most of the other major schools do too. And yes I'm all for cutting government funding to universities - hotbeds of liberalism communism paid for with my tax dollars. It would do my heart good to see a whole bunch of "womens studies" programs having to depend on the marketplace to get their loot. Not to mention "environmental studies" that "show" whatever their political master in the Democratic party want them to show. And what about the so called climatologists who are nothing but Paul (never right about anything in his life) Ehrlich clones going on to support the global warming lie? Come on tell me you too wouldn't want to see them have to do honest work for a living.