Is MIT losing it?

[sakky]

<p>

Again, Licklider contributed nothing to packet switching and TCP/IP, which govern today’s internet.

</p>

<p>Licklider contributed the idea of a global network and inspired the first inventors of it. Without him, the idea for such a global network wouldn’t even exist and packet switching and TCP/IP, if they would have ever been invented at all, would be just niche technologies used in localized networks. </p>

<p>

If Roberts or Kleinrock can win top notched prizes such as Turing award, national medal of technology, and medal of freedom, as Cerf and Kahn already did. I might agree with your argument. But honestly, I think their chance is very very small, if any.

</p>

<p>Kahn has nothing to do with Stanford. Kleinrock and Roberts have to do with MIT. </p>

<p>

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to tell me MIT’s contribution to internet after its birth. How can you match Stanford’s

</p>

<p>So are you conceding that the birth Internet had more to do with MIT than with Stanford (i.e. Kleinrock + Roberts > Cerf)? </p>

<p>

I can not find the link now that Stanford was ranked ahead of MIT CS. But MIT has never been ranked ahead of Stanford in CS by US NEWS, which I am 100% sure.

</p>

<p>So you are withdrawing your previous claim that Stanford was ranked ahead of MIT CS in USNews? </p>

<p>And what about the ranking of ‘computer engineering’ in USNews this year? Who is ranked below who? I see. </p>

<p>

3. Stanford has created more mile stones: microprosessor, DSL, digital music synthesis, RISC, STANLEY driverless car, Stanford arm, Stanford cart, multiprotocol router, and etc.

</p>

<p>Are they really more important than, say, the integrated circuit, radar, the jet engine, the W3C, the minicomputer, GNU and the FSF, Xwindows, and Kerberos?</p>