“Take root in” would imply that something was adopted in the US, not that it originated there, and I assume that you don’t mean that. I mean, the VHS video cassette standard was created by JVC, but it primarily succeeded because it took root in the US market.
Anyway, assuming you mean what I think you mean, I’d say the creation of the World Wide Web is a pretty substantial event.
Turing is such a towering figure in computing that noting that he was British, not American, doesn’t seem like nitpicking at all.
OTOH, in terms of the modern commercial PC, laptop and tablet, the Xerox PARC guys were absolute geniuses who designed the prototypes for everything we use today. PARC is, of course, located in Palo Alto, California.
And then there’s John von Newmann, a Hungarian who spent the first half of his life in Europe and the second half of his life in the U.S.
In short, the U.S. and Europe almost equally share contributions to computing. It’s not like nothing “substantial” in computing originated outside the U.S.
Turing’s PhD was from the US. von Neumann did most of his work, particularly on computing, in the US. And if only those those two make up an ‘almost equal’ share for Europe’s contributions to computing, I’ll go ahead and say that’s wrong. The only way Europe gets substantial credit is if you include some of the earliest contributors - Pascal, Babbage etc. And those are far too early to be relevant to this discussion.
Can “American Exceptionalism” be explained by North America’s natural resources? The oil of Pennsylvania, the gold of California, the forests, the rivers, the Uranium, everything? Also, by the natural defenses of two very large oceans? Also, by the lack of original inhabitants who were able to put up a fight to defend their land?
I wonder if, 300 years from now, the Republic of Mars might not be the “greatest country in the Solar System,” for the same reasons.
At least from an outside perspective, it seems that much of US success has to do with having systems that consistently reward talent and hard work. IMO.
So? According to his Wikpedia entry which includes a lifetime of important achievments, he spent two whole years in New Jersey. The fact that he grew up in and was educated in England, attended Cambridge University, worked at the National Physics Laboratory in London, was Reader of Mathematics at Manchester University and later Deputy Director of Computing there (where he proposed the Turing Test), published his paper The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesi in London, and worked at Bletchely Park during the war.
What’s a couple of years in New Jersey got to do with anything? Are you seriouslyy trying to claim Turing for America? In that case, can the UK have Henry Ford? I hear he visited London on holiday once.
Turing’s PhD was in hypercomputation under Alonso Church, an obscure branch of computability theory which itself is a subarea of a relatively obscure branch of pure mathematics. His PhD was a mere formality, as he’d already done enough pioneering work on the decision problem for him to be guaranteed immortality whilst he was a research fellow at Trinity College Cambridge where he made the gigantic mental leap of imagining the concept of a universal machine. He did nearly all of his practical work in the UK, first at Bletchley, then at the NPL and finally at the University of Manchester, where he worked on the first computer (the Manchester Baby) which was later made into the first commercially offered computer in the Ferranti Mk 1.
Agreed. It was a stretch, and a bad one. I stand by von neumann’s work being done in America though. And by the statement that most of the advances in computing and technology have sprung from the US, and that Europe doesn’t deserve equal, or almost equal credit, even leaving aside the fact that Europe isn’t a country.
Depends. How many do we have to list to convince you Europe deserves substantial credit? And not just for computing, but also for science and technology as a whole? Just to name a few inventions of many, many: steam locomotives, internal combustion engine, cathode-ray tubes, world-wide-web, thermometer, alternating current, the bikini(!), digital calculator, surface torpedo, espresso machine, electric battery, the first microprocessor, asphalt, ejector seat.
These are not insignificant things. These are massive, important things. And there are so many of them. That’s just a teeny little snapshot.
I won’t list scientific theories, because that list is just ludicrous!
I’m not saying for a second that the US isn’t both prolific and important in this area; but that Europe cannot be dismissed. It, also, is very important.
Yeah, but it’s not a country, as he said. The discussion isn’t whether the US is better than everyone else combined.
The steam engine and internal combustion engine are more than 100 years old, so I wouldn’t count them. I’m not sure what you’re counting as the first microprocessor, but as far as I can tell the only candidates are the Garrett Air Data Computer, TI 1000 or Intel 4004, which are all American.
Have you ever been to Switzerland? I’ve never seen a more “patriotic” country. There you really do see a Swiss flag on just about every building. Far more flags than I ever see in the US.
I’m pretty sure the Swiss think they live in the greatest country.
I know it’s a bit late to contribute to this thread, but I think this is a really interesting discussion that misses a very important point. There is a general human need to rank things and identify who or what is the best, because that is a relatively easy concept to grasp for people. For example, that building in Dubai is the tallest because from ground to the top it has the highest amount of units of measurement. Or Russia is the biggest country because they have the most square kilometres of area. Or Real Madrid is the best team in Spain because they won La Liga this past season.
The problem I see with this attitude is that it ignores a really important aspect of the discussion. Nothing exists in a vacuum. For things that can be measured in units, it’s easy. The thing with the most units (metres of height, for example) wins the contest. But for things like the “greatest” or the “best”, I really think it is a lot harder to just say “X is the best” and leave it at that. Is the US the greatest nation in the world? Maybe, but how much of their greatness is owed to Canadian natural resources, to the discoveries of individuals in other nations that were imported and adapted in the US? How much of their greatness comes from immigrants who were created and informed by another nation? How much is owed to the fact that they are protected by oceans and friendly neighbours (for the most part) and don’t have to face the shadows of hostility right next door like other countries do? How much is owed to foreign trade and investment? All of these things could be what make the US great, but I think it’s hard to just say that the US is the greatest and ignore the rest of the world. If the US is the greatest, it would likely only be by a matter of small degrees. The entire world works as a system, with ebbs and flows in all kinds of directions. The US is a huge part of that, because of a number of circumstances that allow it to be, but without the other nations of the world and the interactions it has with them, it is nothing.
So I guess my point is the same as a lot of other peoples’. The answer to the question in the OP is “It depends”.
i have heard, in talk shows or news summaries, that polling places have done surveys on happiness. more people in the more nanny states rate themselves as happier.