Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.security.firewalls > #679 > unrolled thread

How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer?

Back to article view | Back to comp.security.firewalls

Contents

  How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-12-04 20:33 +0100
    Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> - 2015-12-05 07:26 -0500
      Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-12-05 21:58 +0100
        Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-05 22:42 +0000
          Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-12-06 18:15 +0100
      Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-12-06 18:28 +0100
        Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-12-06 17:36 +0000
          Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-12-06 18:46 +0100
        Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-12-06 18:58 +0000
          Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-12-07 23:19 +0100
            Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-12-07 22:51 +0000
              Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-12-08 23:37 +0100
            Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? homer@lightlink.com - 2015-12-22 20:17 +0000
        Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? homer@lightlink.com - 2015-12-22 20:11 +0000
    Re: How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer? Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-12-20 15:35 +0100

#679 — How good is the chance of building a moderately sized quantum computer?

I have quoted some IMHO remarkable passages on this issue from
a number of sources and posted that together with a few tiny humble
comments of mine at:

http://s13.zetaboards.com/Crypto/topic/7457176/1/

M. K. Shen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#680

>>"Mok-Kong Shen"  wrote in message news:n3spqh$fer$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> I have quoted some IMHO remarkable passages on this issue from
>> a number of sources and posted that together with a few tiny humble
>> comments of mine at:
>>
>> http://s13.zetaboards.com/
>>
>> M. K. Shen

Please stop spamming your Zeta Board contents on Usenet.

If the content was meant to be on Usenet Zetaboards  would have a Web Forum 
to Usenet Gateway.  It doesn't.

If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the Zeta 
Board links.

-- 
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#681

Am 05.12.2015 um 13:26 schrieb David H. Lipman:

> If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the
> Zeta Board links.

I am sorry for the mistake. Below is a copy of the content.

M. K. Shen
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Being curious, as layman, of how quantum logic circuits could be verified,
since simple measurements would have spoiled the qubits without providing
useful informations, I asked and fianally got a hint to quantum tomography.
Though lack of knowledge hindered me to capture the sophisticated 
scientific
arguments in an Wiki article, I read from it the following:

"The number of experimental configurations (state preparations and
measurements) required for full quantum process tomography grows
exponentially with the number of constituent particles of a system.
Consequently, in general, QPT is an impossible task for large-scale 
systems."

I think that this fairly clearly indicates that the chance of building a
moderately sized quantum computer is extremely low from the very beginning,
since verification of computer hardware is necessary in its design,
manufacture and maintenance.

[Addedum 1] In discussions elsewhere I got a reference
http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Martinis2015.pdf
Lacking knowledge, I couldn't understand much of what is written in it,
not to say to attempt to counter-argue. However, I have the impression
that the manner with which quantum tomography is mentioned at two places at
the beginning of the paper is a little bit biased or anyway not very clear.

One first reads there: "In level 1 ...... Quantum process tomography is
often performed on one- and two-qubit gates, which is important as it
proves that proper quantum logic has been achieved. ......."

I suppose that readers of it would afterwards (highly likely) not have
any doubts on a similar "importance" of QPT for more-than-two-qubit gates.
(I personally think that QPT is extremely important for a really solid
proof of correctness of any quantum gate or circuit, but this is of no
relevance here.)

Next one reads from the paper: "In level 2 ...... Process tompgraphy
can be performed, but is typically abandoned because (i) the number of
measurements scales rapidly with increasing number of qubits, (ii)
information on error coherence is hard to use and (iii) it is difficult
to separate out initialization and measurement errors. ......"

In my view (a) this doesn't (clearly) tell the reader whether for cases
of more than 2 qubits quantum process tomography remains important for
the proof of "proper quantum logic" just as in the case of one or two
qubits, (b) this (in my interpretation) is in fact merely a more detailed
formulation of the sentence in Wiki on quantum tomography claiming that
QPT is practically infeasible for cases of larger number of qubits and
consequently, if the "importance" of (a) is true, then the stuffs of
the higher levels treated in the paper would lose their significance.

[Addendum 2] There is contained in [1] a IMHO remarkable citation from
[2] (which refers to [3]) as follows:

"Serge Haroche, while a leader at the frontier of experimental quantum
computing, continues to deride the vision of practical quantum computers
as an impossible dream that can come to fruition only in the wake of
some as yet unglimpsed revolution in physics. As everyone at this meeting
knows well, building a quantum computer will be an enourmous technical
challenge, and perhaps the naysayers will be vindicated in the end.
Surely their skepticism is reasonable. But to me, quantum computing is
not an impossible dream; it is a possible dream. It is a dream that can
be held without flouting the laws of physics as currently understood.
It is a dream that can stimulate an enormously productive collaboration
of experimenters and theorists seeking deep insights into the nature of
decoherence. It is a dream that can be persued by responsible scientists
determined to explore, without prejudice, the potential of a fascinating
and powerful new idea. It is a dream that could change the world. So let
  us dream."

[1] D. P. DiVincenzo, "Origins of Quantum Information Science," in
Lecture Notes of the 44th IFF Spring School "Quantum Information Processing"
(ForsuchungsZentrum Jülich, 2013).

[2] J. Preskill, "Quantum Computing: Pro and Con," Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.
     A454 (1998) 469-486.

[3] S. Haroche, J-M. Raymond, "Quantum Computing: Dream or Nightmare?",
     Physics Today 49(8),p.51 (1996).

[Addendum 3] I suppose the following three citations could also be of
some interest:

(1) From F. H. W. Hossfeld, Komplexitaet und Berechenbarkeit: Ueber die
Moeglichkeiten und Grenzen des Computers. Wiesbaden, 2000:

"..... Auf die Frage P=NP? gibt es aber im Quantumcomputer-Modell vorerst
wohl nur widerspruechliche Aussagen. Der Entwurf des Quantumcomputers
und erst recht seine Verwirklichung ist somit eine Vision, die grosse
Herausforderungen im naechsten Jahrhundert an die Interdisziplinaritaet
stellen wird, denn der Quantumcomputer wird mehr noch als die
"mathematische" Maschine des 20. Jahrhunderts zuvorerst eine 
"physikalische"
Maschine sein!"

(2) From Preface p.xxiii in S. Aaronson, Quantum Computing since 
Democritus,
     2013:

"Partly for that reason, if scalable quantum computing were proved to be
IMpossible, that would excite me a thousand times more than if it were
proved to be possible. For such a failure would imply something wrong or
incomplete with our understanding of quantum mechanics itself: a revolution
in physics! As a congenital pessimist, though, my GUESS is that Nature 
won't
be so kind to us, and that scalable quantum computing will turn out to be
possible after all."

"In summary, you could say that I'am in this field less because of what
you could do with a quantum computer, than because of what the POSSIBILITY
of quantum computers ALREADY does to our conception of the world. EITHER
practical quantum computers can be built, and the limits of the knowledge
are not what we thought they are; OR they can't be built, and the 
principles
of quantum mechanics themselves need revision; OR there's yet-undreamt
method to simulate quantum mechanics efficiently using a conventional
computer. All three of these possibilities sound like crackpuót 
speculations,
but at least one of them is right! So whichever the outcome, what can 
one say
but - to reverse-plagiarize a certain TV commercial - 'that's 
interesting!' "

(3) From C. J. Meier, Eine kurze Geschichte des Quantumcomputers, p.171,
     Hannover, 2015:

"Nach wie vor allerdings mangelt es noch an Grundsaetzlichem: Bislang gibt
es keinen Durchbruch zu einem skalierbaren Quantumrechner. Es gibt noch
keine Analogie zur Entdeckung des Transitors in den 1940er Jahren bei der
Entwicklung des klassischen Computers. Die Frage, ob so etwas wie einen
Transistor fuer den Quantum Computer, also ein beliebig oft kopierbares
Grundelement, gibt, ist noch offen."

[Addendum 4] From P. Cockshott et al., Computation and its Limits, Oxford,
2012, p.172:

"..... Current CMOS technology can achieve error rates of the order of
10^(-25). To achieve this error rate, the quantum gate would require around
100 joules for each switching operation. A single quantum gate operating
in the GHz range would be using of the order of 100 MW of power (Kish, 
2004).
Whilst quantum computing does hold promise as a means of reducing the
complexity of algorithms, it seems unlikely that it will allow us to
escape from the power-consumption limits posed by classical computing."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682

On 2015-12-05, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 05.12.2015 um 13:26 schrieb David H. Lipman:
>
>> If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the
>> Zeta Board links.
>
> I am sorry for the mistake. Below is a copy of the content.
>
> M. K. Shen
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Being curious, as layman, of how quantum logic circuits could be verified,
> since simple measurements would have spoiled the qubits without providing
> useful informations, I asked and fianally got a hint to quantum tomography.
> Though lack of knowledge hindered me to capture the sophisticated 
> scientific
> arguments in an Wiki article, I read from it the following:
>
> "The number of experimental configurations (state preparations and
> measurements) required for full quantum process tomography grows
> exponentially with the number of constituent particles of a system.
> Consequently, in general, QPT is an impossible task for large-scale 
> systems."
>
> I think that this fairly clearly indicates that the chance of building a
> moderately sized quantum computer is extremely low from the very beginning,
> since verification of computer hardware is necessary in its design,
> manufacture and maintenance.
>
> [Addedum 1] In discussions elsewhere I got a reference
> http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Martinis2015.pdf
> Lacking knowledge, I couldn't understand much of what is written in it,
> not to say to attempt to counter-argue. However, I have the impression
> that the manner with which quantum tomography is mentioned at two places at
> the beginning of the paper is a little bit biased or anyway not very clear.
>
> One first reads there: "In level 1 ...... Quantum process tomography is
> often performed on one- and two-qubit gates, which is important as it
> proves that proper quantum logic has been achieved. ......."
>
> I suppose that readers of it would afterwards (highly likely) not have
> any doubts on a similar "importance" of QPT for more-than-two-qubit gates.
> (I personally think that QPT is extremely important for a really solid
> proof of correctness of any quantum gate or circuit, but this is of no
> relevance here.)
>
> Next one reads from the paper: "In level 2 ...... Process tompgraphy
> can be performed, but is typically abandoned because (i) the number of
> measurements scales rapidly with increasing number of qubits, (ii)
> information on error coherence is hard to use and (iii) it is difficult
> to separate out initialization and measurement errors. ......"
>
> In my view (a) this doesn't (clearly) tell the reader whether for cases
> of more than 2 qubits quantum process tomography remains important for
> the proof of "proper quantum logic" just as in the case of one or two
> qubits, (b) this (in my interpretation) is in fact merely a more detailed
> formulation of the sentence in Wiki on quantum tomography claiming that
> QPT is practically infeasible for cases of larger number of qubits and
> consequently, if the "importance" of (a) is true, then the stuffs of
> the higher levels treated in the paper would lose their significance.
>
> [Addendum 2] There is contained in [1] a IMHO remarkable citation from
> [2] (which refers to [3]) as follows:
>
> "Serge Haroche, while a leader at the frontier of experimental quantum
> computing, continues to deride the vision of practical quantum computers
> as an impossible dream that can come to fruition only in the wake of
> some as yet unglimpsed revolution in physics. As everyone at this meeting
> knows well, building a quantum computer will be an enourmous technical
> challenge, and perhaps the naysayers will be vindicated in the end.
> Surely their skepticism is reasonable. But to me, quantum computing is
> not an impossible dream; it is a possible dream. It is a dream that can
> be held without flouting the laws of physics as currently understood.
> It is a dream that can stimulate an enormously productive collaboration
> of experimenters and theorists seeking deep insights into the nature of
> decoherence. It is a dream that can be persued by responsible scientists
> determined to explore, without prejudice, the potential of a fascinating
> and powerful new idea. It is a dream that could change the world. So let
>   us dream."
>
> [1] D. P. DiVincenzo, "Origins of Quantum Information Science," in
> Lecture Notes of the 44th IFF Spring School "Quantum Information Processing"
> (ForsuchungsZentrum J??lich, 2013).
>
> [2] J. Preskill, "Quantum Computing: Pro and Con," Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.
>      A454 (1998) 469-486.
>
> [3] S. Haroche, J-M. Raymond, "Quantum Computing: Dream or Nightmare?",
>      Physics Today 49(8),p.51 (1996).
>
> [Addendum 3] I suppose the following three citations could also be of
> some interest:
>
> (1) From F. H. W. Hossfeld, Komplexitaet und Berechenbarkeit: Ueber die
> Moeglichkeiten und Grenzen des Computers. Wiesbaden, 2000:
>
> "..... Auf die Frage P=NP? gibt es aber im Quantumcomputer-Modell vorerst
> wohl nur widerspruechliche Aussagen. Der Entwurf des Quantumcomputers
> und erst recht seine Verwirklichung ist somit eine Vision, die grosse
> Herausforderungen im naechsten Jahrhundert an die Interdisziplinaritaet
> stellen wird, denn der Quantumcomputer wird mehr noch als die
> "mathematische" Maschine des 20. Jahrhunderts zuvorerst eine 
> "physikalische"
> Maschine sein!"
>
> (2) From Preface p.xxiii in S. Aaronson, Quantum Computing since 
> Democritus,
>      2013:
>
> "Partly for that reason, if scalable quantum computing were proved to be
> IMpossible, that would excite me a thousand times more than if it were
> proved to be possible. For such a failure would imply something wrong or
> incomplete with our understanding of quantum mechanics itself: a revolution
> in physics! As a congenital pessimist, though, my GUESS is that Nature 
> won't
> be so kind to us, and that scalable quantum computing will turn out to be
> possible after all."
>
> "In summary, you could say that I'am in this field less because of what
> you could do with a quantum computer, than because of what the POSSIBILITY
> of quantum computers ALREADY does to our conception of the world. EITHER
> practical quantum computers can be built, and the limits of the knowledge
> are not what we thought they are; OR they can't be built, and the 
> principles
> of quantum mechanics themselves need revision; OR there's yet-undreamt
> method to simulate quantum mechanics efficiently using a conventional
> computer. All three of these possibilities sound like crackpu??t 
> speculations,
> but at least one of them is right! So whichever the outcome, what can 
> one say
> but - to reverse-plagiarize a certain TV commercial - 'that's 
> interesting!' "
>
> (3) From C. J. Meier, Eine kurze Geschichte des Quantumcomputers, p.171,
>      Hannover, 2015:
>
> "Nach wie vor allerdings mangelt es noch an Grundsaetzlichem: Bislang gibt
> es keinen Durchbruch zu einem skalierbaren Quantumrechner. Es gibt noch
> keine Analogie zur Entdeckung des Transitors in den 1940er Jahren bei der
> Entwicklung des klassischen Computers. Die Frage, ob so etwas wie einen
> Transistor fuer den Quantum Computer, also ein beliebig oft kopierbares
> Grundelement, gibt, ist noch offen."
>
> [Addendum 4] From P. Cockshott et al., Computation and its Limits, Oxford,
> 2012, p.172:
>
> "..... Current CMOS technology can achieve error rates of the order of
> 10^(-25). To achieve this error rate, the quantum gate would require around
> 100 joules for each switching operation. A single quantum gate operating
> in the GHz range would be using of the order of 100 MW of power (Kish, 
> 2004).
> Whilst quantum computing does hold promise as a means of reducing the
> complexity of algorithms, it seems unlikely that it will allow us to
> escape from the power-consumption limits posed by classical computing."
>
>
>

Lets see, you throw together a farago of quotes, some from very early in
the game, some from later, some from people who know what they are
talking about some from people who do not. Since you are (self
confessed)  from the far incompetent end of the spectrum regarding 
quantum computing, why not just sit back and see. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683

Am 05.12.2015 um 23:42 schrieb William Unruh:
[snip]

> Lets see, you throw together a farago of quotes, some from very early in
> the game, some from later, some from people who know what they are
> talking about some from people who do not. Since you are (self
> confessed)  from the far incompetent end of the spectrum regarding
> quantum computing, why not just sit back and see.

I want to "see" "now" what the experts have to say in this IMHO
highly controversial issue, which, as one knows, is consuming
quite a lot of research moneys in many countries of the world.

See also: 
http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/07/22/google-sees-long-expensive-road-ahead-for-quantum-computing/

M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684

Am 05.12.2015 um 13:26 schrieb David H. Lipman:

> If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the
> Zeta Board links.

I believed due to your strongly affirmative statements that I must have
done something wrong and have posted the content of the URL to the group
in compliance to your advice.

I have nonetheless a couple of questions to ask you:

(1) It sometimes occurs in Internet discussions that one has to ask
the readers to view quite some stuffs in a paper that is available
online. Elsewhere I used to simply give the corresponding URL. What
should one correctly do in your opinion? (Note that the relevant stuffs
concerned may be so voluminous such that it is barely possible to copy
them all to the group.)

(2) If the answer to (1) is just to provide the URL, why is it improper
to provide the URL in the case of my OP (noting that in both cases the
reader has to perform the same operation in practice in order to obtain
the content)?

Thanks in advance.

M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#685

On 2015-12-06, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 05.12.2015 um 13:26 schrieb David H. Lipman:
>
>> If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the
>> Zeta Board links.
>
> I believed due to your strongly affirmative statements that I must have
> done something wrong and have posted the content of the URL to the group
> in compliance to your advice.
>
> I have nonetheless a couple of questions to ask you:
>
> (1) It sometimes occurs in Internet discussions that one has to ask
> the readers to view quite some stuffs in a paper that is available
> online. Elsewhere I used to simply give the corresponding URL. What
> should one correctly do in your opinion? (Note that the relevant stuffs
> concerned may be so voluminous such that it is barely possible to copy
> them all to the group.)

Summarize so that people can decide for themselves whether or not they
want to go to the effort. 
>
> (2) If the answer to (1) is just to provide the URL, why is it improper

It is not the answer to (1).

> to provide the URL in the case of my OP (noting that in both cases the
> reader has to perform the same operation in practice in order to obtain
> the content)?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> M. K. Shen
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686

Am 06.12.2015 um 18:36 schrieb William Unruh:
> On 2015-12-06, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Am 05.12.2015 um 13:26 schrieb David H. Lipman:
>>
>>> If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the
>>> Zeta Board links.
>>
>> I believed due to your strongly affirmative statements that I must have
>> done something wrong and have posted the content of the URL to the group
>> in compliance to your advice.
>>
>> I have nonetheless a couple of questions to ask you:
>>
>> (1) It sometimes occurs in Internet discussions that one has to ask
>> the readers to view quite some stuffs in a paper that is available
>> online. Elsewhere I used to simply give the corresponding URL. What
>> should one correctly do in your opinion? (Note that the relevant stuffs
>> concerned may be so voluminous such that it is barely possible to copy
>> them all to the group.)
>
> Summarize so that people can decide for themselves whether or not they
> want to go to the effort.
>>
>> (2) If the answer to (1) is just to provide the URL, why is it improper
>
> It is not the answer to (1).
>
>> to provide the URL in the case of my OP (noting that in both cases the
>> reader has to perform the same operation in practice in order to obtain
>> the content)?

There are situations where summerizing is not possible, including,
among others, e.g. (1) where the stuff concerned are lots of math
and (2) lenghty arguments which one doesn't fully understand (and
hence has no idea of how to best summerize).

M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687

In comp.misc Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 05.12.2015 um 13:26 schrieb David H. Lipman:

> > If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the
> > Zeta Board links.

> I believed due to your strongly affirmative statements that I must have
> done something wrong and have posted the content of the URL to the group
> in compliance to your advice.

> I have nonetheless a couple of questions to ask you:

> (1) It sometimes occurs in Internet discussions that one has to ask
> the readers to view quite some stuffs in a paper that is available
> online. Elsewhere I used to simply give the corresponding URL. What
> should one correctly do in your opinion? (Note that the relevant stuffs
> concerned may be so voluminous such that it is barely possible to copy
> them all to the group.)

This is the difference between 'discussion' and 'citation'.

Your origional posting was simply a bare URL.  What made it improper
was that there was no corresponding discussion, within Usenet,
accompanying the url, to make the url a proper citation.

To be proper, the usenet posting should contain sufficient content
itself to allow a reader to determine if they wish to go view the cited
url.

> (2) If the answer to (1) is just to provide the URL, why is it
> improper to provide the URL in the case of my OP (noting that in both
> cases the reader has to perform the same operation in practice in
> order to obtain the content)?

Because in this case, presumably, there is some discussion, and the url
is merely present to provide additional details or more in depth
analysis of that being discussed.

In your original post, it was only a url, nothing more.

Also, posting only a url, with nothing more, also begins to step upon
the border on the fuzzy area of appearing to be spam advertising of the
website.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#688

Am 06.12.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Rich:
> In comp.misc Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Am 05.12.2015 um 13:26 schrieb David H. Lipman:
>
>>> If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the
>>> Zeta Board links.
>
>> I believed due to your strongly affirmative statements that I must have
>> done something wrong and have posted the content of the URL to the group
>> in compliance to your advice.
>
>> I have nonetheless a couple of questions to ask you:
>
>> (1) It sometimes occurs in Internet discussions that one has to ask
>> the readers to view quite some stuffs in a paper that is available
>> online. Elsewhere I used to simply give the corresponding URL. What
>> should one correctly do in your opinion? (Note that the relevant stuffs
>> concerned may be so voluminous such that it is barely possible to copy
>> them all to the group.)
>
> This is the difference between 'discussion' and 'citation'.
>
> Your origional posting was simply a bare URL.  What made it improper
> was that there was no corresponding discussion, within Usenet,
> accompanying the url, to make the url a proper citation.
>
> To be proper, the usenet posting should contain sufficient content
> itself to allow a reader to determine if they wish to go view the cited
> url.
>
>> (2) If the answer to (1) is just to provide the URL, why is it
>> improper to provide the URL in the case of my OP (noting that in both
>> cases the reader has to perform the same operation in practice in
>> order to obtain the content)?
>
> Because in this case, presumably, there is some discussion, and the url
> is merely present to provide additional details or more in depth
> analysis of that being discussed.
>
> In your original post, it was only a url, nothing more.
>
> Also, posting only a url, with nothing more, also begins to step upon
> the border on the fuzzy area of appearing to be spam advertising of the
> website.
>

How "only" a URL and "nothing" more?? Did you perceive in my OP the
3 lines preceding the URL?? One could on the other hand argue whether
that's sufficient, but that sufficiency certainly couldn't be determined
with the exatness of math. The title of the post together with the
3 lines should provide sufficient information for the reader to
decide whether he wants to read more or not. (In fact the title is
written comparable to the headline of a newspaper.)

M. K. Shen


M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#689

In comp.misc Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 06.12.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Rich:
> > This is the difference between 'discussion' and 'citation'.
> >
> > Your origional posting was simply a bare URL.  What made it improper
> > was that there was no corresponding discussion, within Usenet,
> > accompanying the url, to make the url a proper citation.
> >
> > To be proper, the usenet posting should contain sufficient content
> > itself to allow a reader to determine if they wish to go view the cited
> > url.
> >
> >> (2) If the answer to (1) is just to provide the URL, why is it
> >> improper to provide the URL in the case of my OP (noting that in both
> >> cases the reader has to perform the same operation in practice in
> >> order to obtain the content)?
> >
> > Because in this case, presumably, there is some discussion, and the url
> > is merely present to provide additional details or more in depth
> > analysis of that being discussed.
> >
> > In your original post, it was only a url, nothing more.
> >
> > Also, posting only a url, with nothing more, also begins to step upon
> > the border on the fuzzy area of appearing to be spam advertising of the
> > website.
> >

> How "only" a URL and "nothing" more?? Did you perceive in my OP the
> 3 lines preceding the URL?? One could on the other hand argue whether
> that's sufficient, but that sufficiency certainly couldn't be determined
> with the exatness of math. The title of the post together with the
> 3 lines should provide sufficient information for the reader to
> decide whether he wants to read more or not. (In fact the title is
> written comparable to the headline of a newspaper.)

Your three 'lines' amounted to this:

  Over here somewhere else -- I have some info.

There was zero substance with which to determine whether there was anything
of value at the URL such that it was worth bothering to browse to the
URL.

Or, in other words, you merely posted an advertisement (i.e., SPAM).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690

Am 07.12.2015 um 23:51 schrieb Rich:
> In comp.misc Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Am 06.12.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Rich:
>>> This is the difference between 'discussion' and 'citation'.
>>>
>>> Your origional posting was simply a bare URL.  What made it improper
>>> was that there was no corresponding discussion, within Usenet,
>>> accompanying the url, to make the url a proper citation.
>>>
>>> To be proper, the usenet posting should contain sufficient content
>>> itself to allow a reader to determine if they wish to go view the cited
>>> url.
>>>
>>>> (2) If the answer to (1) is just to provide the URL, why is it
>>>> improper to provide the URL in the case of my OP (noting that in both
>>>> cases the reader has to perform the same operation in practice in
>>>> order to obtain the content)?
>>>
>>> Because in this case, presumably, there is some discussion, and the url
>>> is merely present to provide additional details or more in depth
>>> analysis of that being discussed.
>>>
>>> In your original post, it was only a url, nothing more.
>>>
>>> Also, posting only a url, with nothing more, also begins to step upon
>>> the border on the fuzzy area of appearing to be spam advertising of the
>>> website.
>>>
>
>> How "only" a URL and "nothing" more?? Did you perceive in my OP the
>> 3 lines preceding the URL?? One could on the other hand argue whether
>> that's sufficient, but that sufficiency certainly couldn't be determined
>> with the exatness of math. The title of the post together with the
>> 3 lines should provide sufficient information for the reader to
>> decide whether he wants to read more or not. (In fact the title is
>> written comparable to the headline of a newspaper.)
>
> Your three 'lines' amounted to this:
>
>    Over here somewhere else -- I have some info.
>
> There was zero substance with which to determine whether there was anything
> of value at the URL such that it was worth bothering to browse to the
> URL.
>
> Or, in other words, you merely posted an advertisement (i.e., SPAM).

You seem to want to take some "exact" attitude towards others.
If so, then, as I wrote, you shouldn't in the present context
have yourself empolyed "only" and "nothing more" as critique
on me.

As I also wrote, besides the 3 lines the title of my post
gives quite concrete informations. (The contrary would have been
the case, if I had formulated the title very generally/vaguely,
e.g. "On an issue of quantumphysics".) Thus a reader of my OP
should know quite well, what kind of stuff he would very probably
see, if he clicks on the link that I gave.

Further, I would also like very much to know whether there exist
any official regulations/rules of the groups herewith concerned that
clearly say one should not post any links without giving well
sufficient summary/abstract of the contents of the links.

M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#698

In alt.anonymous Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Your origional posting was simply a bare URL.  What made it improper
>> was that there was no corresponding discussion, within Usenet,
>> accompanying the url, to make the url a proper citation.
>>
>> To be proper, the usenet posting should contain sufficient content
>> itself to allow a reader to determine if they wish to go view the cited
>> url.

      In most of the groups that I inhabit, a bare URL implicitly
means 'Hey this is interesting and pertinent, check it out!.'

      I would agree a quick subject line on the URL would be useful
but a subject line in the header of the post would be sufficient.
 
>> Because in this case, presumably, there is some discussion, and the url
>> is merely present to provide additional details or more in depth
>> analysis of that being discussed.

     The original poster does not owe discussion, he owes something
pertinent to the news group through the URL, and others can start
the discussion if they want.

>> Also, posting only a url, with nothing more, also begins to step upon
>> the border on the fuzzy area of appearing to be spam advertising of the
>> website.

     This is true, but one wouldn't want to criticize before
the fact of evidence for spam.

     Homer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697

     A higher question might be what is this doing on alt.anonymous :)

     My point of view is "do to others what you would have them to do
you." There are no rules for usenet about posting URL's, only rules that
you stay on topic and not spam with URL's to commercial sites.

     SOME groups might have a collection of private rules agreed upon by
the usual members of the group, and these should be posted in the
charter for that group which of course would be posted to the group
periodically so that others might see.

     That said some text bsed usenet news readers do not handle html
well, and URL's thus are not very useful to that reader.
 
     On the other side of that, with more advanced news readers, URL's
can be quite useful pointing to highly complex html pages and graphics
which couldn't be replicated in the text groups of usenet at all.  and
which direct the reader to a rich source of information beyond the
immediate posting in question.

     A compromise might be to post the text part of the posting in
usenet along with the URL for 'more information'.

     URL's are quite common and welcome in all the groups that I myself
participate in.

     Its like the people who scream bloody murder when someone posts a
subject line in all caps, god what a sin.

     Do well and keep posting, and do what you would have others do.

     Homer

In alt.anonymous Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote:
> Am 05.12.2015 um 13:26 schrieb David H. Lipman:
> 
>> If you want the content on Usenet then just post the content, not the
>> Zeta Board links.
> 
> I believed due to your strongly affirmative statements that I must have
> done something wrong and have posted the content of the URL to the group
> in compliance to your advice.
> 
> I have nonetheless a couple of questions to ask you:
> 
> (1) It sometimes occurs in Internet discussions that one has to ask
> the readers to view quite some stuffs in a paper that is available
> online. Elsewhere I used to simply give the corresponding URL. What
> should one correctly do in your opinion? (Note that the relevant stuffs
> concerned may be so voluminous such that it is barely possible to copy
> them all to the group.)
> 
> (2) If the answer to (1) is just to provide the URL, why is it improper
> to provide the URL in the case of my OP (noting that in both cases the
> reader has to perform the same operation in practice in order to obtain
> the content)?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> M. K. Shen
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask?   http://www.lightlink.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#696

Am 04.12.2015 um 20:33 schrieb Mok-Kong Shen:

> http://s13.zetaboards.com/Crypto/topic/7457176/1/

The content of the URL has been extended.

M. K. Shen

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.security.firewalls

csiph-web