Re: Much Regreted

[NM Research <nm_research@yahoo.com>]

I feel that I have valid arguements against some current quantum coding, gates, qubits, etc.  I am more for a statiscally and AI approach rather than protocols. Furthermore with wavelength, frequency and polarity you could assign each and every word a place/bit.  If the IETF is not carefully something will come along that will kill them like fidonet.  It is not remote : IPv6 and Internet 2 may be still born.

 

Nyagudi 

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

Without beginning to understand the physics involved, I think it would be a
loss if short concise postings like yours [1] were to be discouraged from
this IETF list. I do think the occasional challenge to conventional
thinking is very healthy and desirable.

#g
--

[1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg21526.html

At 21:31 09/07/03 -0700, NM Research wrote:
>Sorry for the posting. Much regretted to have caused a storm, and I have
>received your complaints both public and private in good faith.
>
>I was just trying to emphasize that the current solid state physics and
>protocols that IETF discusses cannot be sustained in the future if quantum
>internet systems are to realized.
>
>At times absurdity in the present my be reality in the future.
>
>Regrets,
>Nyagudi
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>SBC
>Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

-------------------
Graham Klyne

PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

---

Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!