[MD] Quantum computing

[david buchanan]

Magnus Berg:
And computer lingo, just like any other business, is of course filled with 
lots of terms to make the language usable when discussing that business. Not 
sure why you must insult us just for doing what everybody else does.

dmb says:
Okay, fair point. I don't know what you do for a living and so my complaints 
are not aimed at you or your business in particular but I would extend the 
"insult" to anyone who invents bad analogies in any business rather than 
retract it for computer jargon. By the way, a friend of my wife's worked in 
that field for a time and tells her that its literally true, that borderline 
austic people have done quite well for themselves in the computer world and 
have played a role in creating its jargon. Much of its meaninglessness stems 
from the fact that we are also dealing with a lot of brand names, largely 
generated by people in marketing and advertising. They are co-conspirators 
in the murder of the english language.

I own a Mac, for example. This is a computer I use at home for personal 
purposes and yet, because its made by Apple its not a PC, not a personal 
computer. Huh? In what sense is it not a personal computer? Also, instant 
messages are different from e-mail. Huh? In what sense is e-mail not an 
instant message? I have all kinds of applications on my computer that remain 
a complete mystery to me. Even after I've read the descriptions of what they 
are, I still have no idea what how to operate them or even what they are 
used for. And these things don't even have an instruction manual. You gotta 
use it to get the instructions on how to use it. But even then, every 
sentence seems to contain several terms that require a special glossary to 
decode.

According to the "expert" I talked to on the helpline, my machine doesn't 
even have a name. She insisted that its just a Mac and that's it. But, but, 
but I have another machine that's 7 years old! Are you telling me that "Mac" 
refers to both of them? Is there no further designation so that we know 
which machine we're talking about? If that's true, its incredibly stupid and 
if its not true then their helpline of experts is neither expert nor 
helpful.

And of course desktop computers are for everybody over four years of age. I 
understand that jargon is used by different kinds of specialists in all 
sorts of fields. It saves time and such. But desktop analogies are something 
that everybody has to deal with. They're in every school, home and business 
and are otherwise NOT the domain of specialists.

As you may have gathered, I'm not too crazy about any kind of jargon. But in 
this case we're talking about unavoidable jargon that unnecessarily 
complicates every little task. And the Mac I have is apparently designed to 
be an advertising machine. As soon as "safari" is opened it hits you with a 
bunch of ads with links to their virtual store scattered here and there. 
Imagine hearing a tire ad every time you start your car or a food ad every 
time you open your fridge. Its ridiculous.

Not that I hold you responsible or expect you to defend this. I'm just 
saying there are good reasons to be irritated and confused.

dmb

>
> > dmb says:
> > Good point. But there is also a very real sense in which analogies can 
>be
> > right or wrong. We've all encountered them on standardized tests. 
>Metaphors
> > are a little more complicated, but these too can be misleading or 
>helpful,
> > good or bad. In this case, of course, the debate is not just about which
> > image we like best. It about the best way to imagine a complex abstract
> > concept, namely the evolution of everything, of the universe. As you 
>know,
> > I'm saying concentric circles present a picture of the whole with 
>nothing
> > outside while the tree fails because it requires an enviroment in which 
>to
> > grow, suggesting that the universe expands within another universe 
>outside
> > itself. This simply defies the meaning of the word "universe". It 
>suggests
> > there is a pre-existing space in which space exists and that's just 
>goofy.
> > Thus the metaphor just doesn't work.
> >
> > Did you notice how Case had to pretend I was making an argument for a
> > staircase or a ladder in order avoid this point? Why? Because staircases 
>and
> > ladders also need a pre-existing enviroment and so the switch inserts 
>the
> > same mistake we find with trees. These are all flawed for the same 
>reason
> > but the concentric circles rightly suggest no such externals.
>
>
>But concentric circles do suggest that outer levels include all of the 
>inner
>levels, and as Case and Platt discussed with a cell, this isn't true.
>
>...which is why I'm gonna stick to my orthogonal dimensional view. It 
>doesn't
>suggest anything, other than that they are completely orthogonal.
>
>	Magnus
>
>moq_discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

_________________________________________________________________
i'm making a difference. Make every IM count for the cause of your choice. 
Join Now. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0080000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtagline