Scientific American on Quantum Encryption

Justin justin-cypherpunks at
Thu Jan 20 07:23:35 PST 2005

On 2005-01-20T12:16:34+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their nanotechnology
> retraction).

How could they possibly get clue?  Scientists don't want to write
pop-sci articles for a living.  It's impossible to condense most current
research down to digestible kernels that the masses can understand.
SciAm should close down, requiring those who care about science to learn
enough about it to read science journals.

Professors who can teach a QM course well in a semester are rare enough.
I doubt any one of them could write a 5000 word article on quantum
entanglement that would be intelligible to the average cretinous
American who wants to seem smart by reading Sci-Am.  If they want to be
smart, they can start by picking up an undergrad-level book on QM.  But
that requires much effort to read, unlike a glossy 5000 word article.

Journalism should not be a college major.  Journalists in the main know
little about how to write and interview, and less about the topics they
write on.  They don't understand that being able to write (and in many
cases even that ability is in serious doubt) doesn't qualify them to
write on any topic they choose.  Many journalists aren't qualified to
write on anything, not even journalism.

"War is the father and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as
men; some he makes slaves, others free."  --Heraclitus (Kahn.83/D-K.53)

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list