I'd put it this way: Unless you've found out how to fix it, you cannot distinguish between incompetence, greed and malevolence - any of those words can be used in a conversation describing a conflict involving groups of people. On the other hand, There's probably always a caring and positive solution to such conflicts which is superior to the alternatives.
Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Michael Dykman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
