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

Groups > comp.security.firewalls > #688

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

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to comp.security.firewalls | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web