Functional quantum computer?

[Trei, Peter]

Jim seems to have a real hard time with this concept.

Last week, I privately mailed him a polite letter on
just this issue over a post he sent telling us to look
at slashdot. He responded with obscenities, ordering
me to not send him any more private mail.

I took issue with the tone of his letter (most people
PREFER having their nettiquette lapses pointed out
privately), and responded (politely) to that effect. Jim 
evidently felt this was unacceptable, and attempted to
alert my management. I haven't heard from them, and
assume they gave his rant (he included the
corrospondance, with his obscenity laden missive
alternating with my civil language) all the attention it
merited.

Peter Trei

(I'm posting this to the list, as he would seem to
prefer).


> ----------
> From: 	Jim Choate[SMTP:ravage at ssz.com]
> Reply To: 	Jim Choate
> Sent: 	Sunday, January 07, 2001 10:47 AM
> To: 	cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com
> Subject: 	CDR: Re: Functional quantum computer?
> 
> 
> Hi Meyer,
> 
> Unfortunately there is no guarantee the URL is stable either.
> 
> The point being you've got the topic and they have a search engine.
> 
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > 
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
> > 
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com
> > 
> > Choate, you're either a complete moron or the most obstinate person I've
> > ever encountered. One would expect sciencedaily.com's website to change
> > daily. Hence the name. Now, when someone reads this message of yours two
> > weeks from now and wants to see what it is that you were talking about,
> > they're not going to be able to find it. Quantum computing will have
> been
> > replaced by stories of monkeys trading sexual favors for food in the
> front
> > page headlines.
> > 
> > "Well, I have to do it this way or Tim will yell at me for posting HTML"
> > you say.
> > 
> > Wrong. Post a direct link. Everyone's happy. You don't look stupid. We
> all
> > win.
> > 
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010105075630.htm
> > 
> > Now, is that so hard?
> > 
> > 
> > - -MW-
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.0.3
> > Comment: No comment.
> > 
> > iQEVAwUBOliJESsFU3q6vVI9AQETuAf+MFCuR1YIODPVWJT0u9jlUuxga/ICBIXB
> > vOFEXMXfhWGGd1IERVHaUCr5cJFMD2apHJXYDqoWNOwFqUQyQWlk4pNog322kte0
> > pJ9TDJT1Np5xRQB40okyjG1aYzoJ7NFCOdFmEBaTZXfvnKr+ho4npb9gW2MMX5xF
> > e5JY4yn2Ex2im8wQDP2U80oDRW2GOxp10H0bF2cmQYMNt6gJBIa3RCFPVGpNAhuu
> > +t6DfnvhwyU4DTagCwLiD2DR7BwRvr/CF17LR5DAeazWjT98NYHw5XNNKf+a/1S3
> > WpLIQWT8qEb9VJCsdih+dB32twcBz+O5nbWTgwpBOsTb6kC1KvCZZw==
> > =xByv
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
>