Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jd | Hacker News Reader

"But is made public by the university researchers who usually create it" <-- yeah, the stuff you know about is made public, and the stuff you don't.... isn't. That's what secret means. I think I heard that 50% of the research in Neuroscience labs today is DoD sponsored and never sees the light of day. Mind-hacking anyone?

View on HN

Having recently ended four years working in a neuroscience department at Harvard Medical School...

No.

Tech that could be applied to civilians and made money on doesn't stay hidden for long - this is one place where the "greedy" mba types are the good guys.

I take it you think there are MBA types that wander around NSA headquarters, grab the dragonfly-size spy robots and bring them to market?

yeah, exactly.

there has to be a management structure even at nsa, and management types are "networkers" who'll talk to people with money to invest.

NSA gets their money whether you like it or not. They certainly have people in charge who talk to the legislative branch, but they aren't MBA/marketing people. The are usually ex-generals. Other agencies might seek outside contractors, but the NSA is one of the few who do most of their work themselves. I didn't work there, but that was my understanding at the time I worked in other parts of the government.

Doesn't matter about their backgrounds, mba or ex-general, people who rise to executive levels rub shoulders with investors at cocktail parties and deals happen.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What investors? You have proven you don't know what you are talking about in this thread, but I am curious what you think is true? Who are the heads of the NSA meeting with who would be considered investors? The NSA meets with the Armed Services board and the Senate intelligence board, and that's about it. I get it, you think the government is b.s., but groups like the NSA don't seek outside investment.

No need to get rude, I'm not some teenage troll guy, I'm here for intelligent discussion. I don't seen where I've "proven" myself wrong.

This thread is not about investment into nsa, but commercialization of nsa (or other military/government org) technology. My point was that regardless of nsa'a official stance of secrecy, tech gets "leaked" out into the commercial sphere. You can't stop a good thing from spreading, no matter how hard you try.

Are nuclear bombs good? Do the heads of our national security agencies take technologies that could potentially kill the whole world's population and, because they, like every other executive in the world, are an MBA-types, sell it to whoever they happen to meet at a cocktail party? You may not be a teenager, but I can't say that you aren't a troll.

Nuclear tech, in the form of reactors has been commercialized for quite some time if you haven't noticed. And no, I'm not a troll, just because someone takes a contrary view they are not automatically a troll.

There aren't profit-oriented 'managers', there are 'administrators'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com