Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality (fwd)

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:

> > 1)  secrecy
>
> If you don't know something you either can't take advantage of it or else
> you have to rediscover it on your own. It is clear that if everyone had to
> re-invent the wheel at every step then not much would get done.

If you come up with a mathematical result that can be useful in finance,
you can sometimes make very substantial money either trading for yourself
or selling your result to others who trade. obviously if you publish it
in the open lierature, you can no longer do this.

Folks who work for the NSA and its foreign counterparts generally don't
publish anything, even stuff that would be totally useless to the enemies.

> > 2)  responsibility for publishing
>
> Nobody has a responsbility to publish. Science is a completely voluntary
> pursuit. I would contend personaly that if you don't publish you arent'
> doing science but rather mental masturbation (a rather selfish pursuit I
> suspect).

There have been scientists most of whose work was published after their deaths.
There probably have been scientists whose notes were lost after their deaths,
so we don't know who they were. There have been great writers most of whose
works were discovered and published after their deaths, and are still great
works of lierature.

Instead of talking about obligations or responsiiblities, try to come up
with an economic incentive to publish.  It works best.

> > 3)  working for the government at the expense of unwilling payors
>
> I don't think this is relevant to the issue at all.

Oh yes it is. I pay their salaries with my taxes, I want to see their results.
[snip]

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps