The article was very interesting - I find the whole idea of "innovation tokens" very compelling.
However, I didn't understand how Rumsfeld came into play here. Did somebody understand this point ? I feel like I'm missing something out here.
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones."
Of course knowing the answer but not the question is best left to Douglas Adams.