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(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)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!