Less morality and more ethics, and a pretty unimportant ethic in the grand scheme of things.

Don't forget disperson dominated van der Waals bonding.
The application to quantum computing is probably there to attract attention from slashdotters.

So to you the perception of competency out weights actual ability? There are plenty of people who can dot every i and perform various feats of grammatical gymnastics but would be unable to perform any task requiring skill. While others who are skilled and able to perform might miss a few syntax errors.

This sounds just like the former teragrid and open science grid projects. Both of which saw reasonable useage from the scientific community. These things worked well for two reasons, one it is easy to get time on them for small research groups. Second, they allowed cluster owners to offer up idle cpu time to the project. A net win for every one.

The problem here is not all research groups are equivalent. In theoretical physics, $1500 is allot of money, half a summer salary for a graduate student in fact in many places. It would bring the publication count down quickly if this was indeed the norm, and bring the length of articles up as people would shoe horn two or three letters into a full article. One could argue one way or another on this fact.

That law sounds like a real waist of government resources to me. Any reasonable scientist will keep records of his data and how he analyized the data for as long as possible anyway. The point of that being, if your asked for more information or wish to further that idea in later work, then you will need it available! Also I fail to see how (a law) keeping data forever helps in the prevention of dishonest science? You have a question of an author, you send an email asking it. The making public part would perhapse be helpful when the author in question is obstinant, but think about it. Having just the raw data is not going to be that helpful if your trying to see if someone fabricated the data to start with!