IEEE
You are not logged in, please sign in to edit > Log in / create account  

Possible group label?

From GHN

Jump to: navigation, search

Please summarize the below thread in the editing box. You may use any wikitext in your summary. When you finish, click "Save page".

Warning: You are not logged in, please log in first if you have a valid GHN account.

Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.

Please note that all contributions to GHN may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. You are also promising that you wrote this yourself, the material is in the public domain, or that the material contributed respects the copyrights of the original source. In making contributions to the IEEE GHN, you also accept the copyright terms of the IEEE GHN, which are the Creative Commons Legal Code - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (for more details see Creative Commons Legal Code).

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

I like the approach of the suite of plaques, but I think it begs the question of whether there should be an overall citation for Bell Labs that explains the research environment for contributing to so many IEEE fields. (I'm in favor of one.)

I suggest eliminating the first 11 repetive words from each of the plaques. This frees up 11 words that can be used to explain the impact these discoveries had on the field -- moving the citation from simply a list of achievements to explaining the effect of those achievements.

In addition to eliminating the repetition, I suggest varying the introductory wording "Discoveries in, Contributions to, Advances in, etc."

Why is the proposal for the first 60 years? Is that simply to adhere to the question of whether the achievement is more than 25 years old, implying that 25 years is a marker of being historical? The general public will probably find this dating to be arbitrary, more accustomed to seeing first 50 or 75 years. I would suggest going with the first 50 years and lopping off achievements that fall after this date (giving more room to explain impact of earlier discoveries). If the date range is kept as is, I suggest making it 1925-1985; regarless of how you may count inclusivity, generally people will think 1925 + 60 = 1985.

In response to Ggcooke, the 1st transistor already has its own milestone, so I would remove that from the Solid State list. If other of the discoveries are worthy of individual milestones, I would support a system that would mark those milestones at different locations, such as place of implementation & linking it to a specific impact.

Allisonmarsh15:57, 5 March 2013