You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The first quality a high-tech culture needs is an open minded and culture free to explore the unknown in as many areas as possible. A top-down dictatorship does not provide the culture or initiative for this on the broad scale needed for success. An open culture allows new thought patterns and what are thought to be radical paths and ideas to be pursued and allow failure without criticism or punishment. The path to most great advances is paved in failures along the way to reaching a desired goal. If you punish failure, success will be hard to reach if at all.
The first quality a high-tech culture needs is an open minded and culture free to explore the unknown in as many areas as possible. A top-down dictatorship does not provide the culture or initiative for this on the broad scale needed for success. An open culture allows new thought patterns and what are thought to be radical paths and ideas to be pursued and allow failure without criticism or punishment. The path to most great advances is paved in failures along the way to reaching a desired goal. If you punish failure, success will be hard to reach if at all.
not exactly correct.
some historical issues.
in the business sector there are more freedom.
in the science institution , historically a strong hold for the govt loyalty.
they can cede more ground to it if necessary.
they allow more capitalism in business to boost efficiency.
they can do the same here.
right now the situation is the tradition class not want to give up yet.
Adlai Stevenson said much what Arthur did : "My definition of a free society is one where it's safe to be unpopular ... All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular decisions". I really shouldn't go there, but standards in US presidential candidates do seem to have slipped a smidgen since the 1950s.
From reading "Intel Inside" many years ago, I wonder if this isn't also a large factor with Intel. Out of the box thinking seemed to be limited to only a very small group of people right at the top (like Andy Grove) while everyone else appeared to be following a structured process. No doubt a greatly oversimplified view, but likely some truth in it.
Top down is all very well provided you're operating in a stable and predictable environment, but not when there uncertainty about the way forward. So there were periods where the Soviets made tremendously quick progress - but largely in "catch up" mode and often by buying (or stealing) Western technology in the 1920s and 1930s. Americans designed and supervised building many huge factories in Russia. Though without deindustrialising themselves on that occasion.
