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

Groups > comp.security.firewalls > #689

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

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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).

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