"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:im78juggg1hum9ua1fl56iqqva4f5o69l9 at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
> >First of all, Hopper did not "invent" compilers--this is something that
ALL
> >programmers did on the fly as they used machine language with early
> >computers.
>> Apparently you don't know what a compiler does. A machine language
> programmer doesn't use a compiler.
>> >Second of all, feminazi sites also claim that she invented
> >Cobol, and in 4 decades of programming in Cobol, I never even heard of
> >Hopper.
>> That is because you are a nincompoop.
>> >Third of all, a search on the net for compiler patents produces a
> >LOT of men who have compiler patents, but no Hopper.
>> She was in the military, dummy. Military people seldom (perhaps never)
can
> get patents for work that they do in government service.
They also don't "invent" things, which is precisely why it's STUPID to claim
that a government bureaucrat like Hopper "intented Cobol" or "invented
compilers".
What the feminazis are studiously ignoring by raising Hopper's name is that
it was MEN programmers at IBM other commercial companies who *invented*
everything involved in Cobol, and they relied on the government to do ONE
thing: to *help* set the standard.
But that didn't even make Cobol the industry standard, because
*COMMERCIALLY* developed languages like Fortran and Algol became the
standard.
It's really silly to claim that a public servant like Hopper "invented"
anything.
>> >And lastly, it's absurd to claim that any civil servant, even if they did
> >get a patent for something, invented anything. The vast majority of R&D,
> >development, inventions, and patent applications are filed by industry,
not
> >government.
>> The is because government developments are not protected by patents but
are
> in the public domain (when they aren't classified). The benefits of space
> program research made it into everyday life unusually quickly because most
of
> it wasn't classified or protected by patents.
>
How is it even possible that you're always consistently one bit to the left
on every word you ever write, lojbab?
The vast majority of government R&D *is* classified, and remains classified
until long after it's obsolete. The affirmative action hirees with the
federal government are incapable of, not charged with, and aren't even
rewarded for, inventing anything. As even you know, they don't get patents,
bonuses, or even promotions for "inventing" something, so they don't.
There ARE tremendous classified technologies which have been developed by
PRIVATE industry under government contracts which will remain classified for
a long time, and which not even those companies can profit from in the
private sector. So, NO, Hopper was not an "inventor" of a blasted thing.
Bob Bemer, as an employee of IBM, WAS one of the "inventors" of Cobol, but
the team of engineers behind Cobol's development goes throughout all of IBM.
All Hopper did was sit their on the tail end of all the REAL inventions and
look pretty [or in her case, real ugly].
> >Of the 32,300 compiler patents referenced on the net, only 150 refer to
> >Grace Murray Hopper, and none of those sites provide a compiler patent
> >number for Hopper.
>> Because she didn't patent it. She invented COBOL and large chunks of
> industry got to use it right away without paying royalties to her or the
> government. She got other rewards besides money.
>
Cobol is a kunky language, which is why industry used Fortran and Algol,
rather than Cobol. But it's not so klunky that it would appear that a woman
provided even one punch card worth of input to its development.
It's hard to imagine that American citizens could know so little about the
way R&D works in this country, by DESIGN. It's no accident that *private*
contractors are the actual "inventors" and patent holders of key
technologies--it was BY DESIGN, and it certainly was not a deep, dark secret
that you "liberals" are incapable of understanding.
> >This is almost as bad as dredging up the century old quarter of a patent
> >Marie Curie got.
>> No one has mentioned any patents that Curie got. I'm not sure that she
tried
> to get any.
>> lojbab
That's because she was a dumb broad. It was Pierre, and his father, and
Becquerel, who got all the patents. Why? Marie got the quarter of a Nobel
Prize ONLY because Pierre thought it was "more satisfying from the artistic
point of view".
You "liberals" have taken this "artistic point of view" and virtually
converted it into "Thank God Marie's intellect saved the entire human race".
It's a feminazi LIE, and even you "liberals" know it.
John Knight
