I learned it as: never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence; never ascribe to incompetence what can be attributed to greed. On Oct 18, 2013 5:21 PM, "Devon McCormick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Never attribute to malevolence and conspiracy > what can be explained by ineptitude and apathy. > - Skeptic folk saying > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Scott Locklin <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Raul: > > > > >Of course I might be wrong about that. But we certainly seem to be > > > > >investing a lot of money into making sure that academics are... > > > > >well... academic, and so specialized that we do not accomplish much of > > > > >anything useful. > > > > > > IMO, this is just something that happens in the late stages of > > bureaucratization. Though I am no expert, other than a few grad school > > courses, and talking to real experts, I don't think there is anything > > particularly wrong with QM. Maybe there will be something more satisfying > > one day, but at present, there seems no reason to doubt the results. > Stuff > > like string theory, or doing decades of "research" on programming > imaginary > > quantum computers, though: this is just an academic glass bead game. If > > it's not physical, as in, you can do an experiment with physical objects, > > it's not physics. The experimental side is the hard part. A lot of theory > > is just collecting a paycheck for being smart. Easy living if you can get > > the work though; I considered it as a career path before coming to my > > senses. > > > > > > >My take is that we do have a huge optical computing infrastructure > > > > >already built. And that our government is so twisted around its own > > >structure that it can't admit, yet, to having built it, nor what its > > > > >capabilities are. > > > > > > >And I think I know why. And I'm trying to work up enough courage to > > > > >express those thoughts. > > > > I'd be curious what you're thinking here. The spooks certainly have stuff > > we don't specifically know about (crazy space planes, big computers, big > > ASIC things for doing crypto, weird ECM doodads), but it seems to me a > > large scale revolutionary invention like a useful optical computer would > be > > difficult to hide. You can infer a lot about spooky government priorities > > going through the SBIR funny papers; all the "total information > awareness" > > successors were pretty obvious looking at these some years ago. You could > > also tell the F-35 was doomed back in 2006 or so. It seems like a big > > optical computer would require infrastructure and new doodads that you'd > > hear about from time to time. You'd probably also see things from > Coherent > > and Newport (and, I dunno, maybe Cisco) which could be used for such a > > beast. > > > > FWIIW, I think this project has the best chances of turning Fusion into > an > > energy technology. I'll eventually be going through some of the patents > on > > my blog, but they seem like serious people with some really good ideas. > > > > > > > http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/the-secret-us-russian-nuclear-fusion-project/19039 > > > > > > -SL > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > > > > -- > Devon McCormick, CFA > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
