Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

189 comments

Grammar (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267136)

reports of it's first sale to Lockheed Martin
Does it have spellcheck?

Re:Grammar (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267280)

Spellcheckers don't usually help with grammar.

Re:Grammar (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268180)

Punctuation isn't grammar.

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267420)

The post was written in a parallel universe, in which that grammar is correct.

Re:Grammar (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267722)

When you feel the need to post because of a missing ' maybe you need some time off from the computer, or simply refrain from posting said concern...

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267806)

Maybe it's the ubiquity of the error that gets the GP's goat. If you notice the error on your first read through you have to question whether anyone read what was written before it was posted, and then you question the quality of the submission altogether.

Re:Grammar (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267898)

If all you can focus on is a grammatical error, maybe you should question your relevance to the human race and what you bring to the table.

Re:Grammar (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267830)

reports of it's first sale to Lockheed Martin

Does it have spellcheck?

Any way is perfectly correct, in both spelling and grammar:

reports of it's first sale to Lockheed Martin

In this case it means the reports say it is the first sale to Lockheed Martin

reports of its first sale to Lockheed Martin

Here we have the possessive "its" meaning the first sale of that computer was to Lockheed Martin

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268034)

reports of it's first sale to Lockheed Martin

In this case it means the reports say it is the first sale to Lockheed Martin

Unfortunately, the grammar you speak of implies a different tone we all can create and recognize. For that our language... overlords ;) have made it require punctuation. A good sentence builder has no other choice but to say:

reports of, "it's [ A | THE ] first sale to Lockheed Martin",

If you read work by novelists and a few other people, you may find that they prefer to omit the double quotes. And the determinate / indeterminate article can't be omitted either.

Hmmm, I'll post this as the AC. We all should learn one helpful new thing per day.

it's != its (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267150)

I mean, FFS ...

I want one... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267166)

...but I'm uncertain if I'll buy one. Maybe I should check with my cat.

Re:I want one... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267692)

...but I'm uncertain if I'll buy one. Maybe I should check with my cat.

Oh NOW you remember to check the cat. It's been locked in that box for a week now. It's dead.
or is it?

Re:I want one... (1)

Outtascope (972222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268392)

Neither. No, both. Damn it, just open the box.

It goes to the Accounting Department (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267190)

so that it can devise new ways of separating the biggest fool (the US Government) from its money.

Re:It goes to the Accounting Department (1)

transfatfree (1920462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267894)

what money?..

Re:It goes to the Accounting Department (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268014)

He meant the Chinese government.

Quantum security, in the nick of time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267192)

It appears that LockMart may have to use it to replace its RSA SecurID system...

Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267198)

What is Lockheed going to name it? ...Skynet

Re:Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267298)

No, that's Britain's new defense system.

http://gizmodo.com/5016312/britain-launches-final-real+life-skynet-satellite-dubs-it-skynet-with-no-sense-of-irony

Conversation in IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267208)

Oh boy. So what's going happen when they get answers from the machine.

ENGINEER 1: "Why does it give two different answers?"

ENGINEER 2: "Only two this time? Usually, it's more. But to answer your question, it depends on when the program looks at the ground state. You see, the answer is only an average of position of particles."

ENG 1: "Whaaaaaatttt?!"

ENG2 : "Hey man, it's all up probability and Mother Nature. Hand me another cat while you're here."

So, how long has the NSA had one? (3, Interesting)

pestie (141370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267216)

So, can this thing crack all non-quantum encryption, then? I seem to remember reading about how that would only require 32 qubits or so. And whether it can or can't, if commercial offerings have come this far, how long has the NSA had a version that can crack all encryption?

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (2)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267294)

No, since you can't crack non-quantum one-time pad encryption without the encryption pad.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (1)

pestie (141370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267342)

OK, fair enough - I had forgotten about one-time pads. I really should have specified "all encryption based on multiplying two large primes," since that's the vast majority of commercially-significant encryption. I'm not even sure if there's a theoretical quantum attack on elliptic-curve algorithms or not.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267616)

Adiabatic quantum computing != "classic" quantum computing.

It does NOT runs the Shor algorithm.

You can use SSL to download your porn safely tonight.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268160)

whew! I just finished moving a lot over to an external drive so I could get more.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268316)

It would be better if you use TLS, though, as it overcomes some of the problems with SSL.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268016)

AES isn't commercially-significant? What about RC4?

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (3, Interesting)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268144)

I really should have specified "all encryption based on multiplying two large primes," since that's the vast majority of commercially-significant encryption

No it isn't. It's public/private key encryption. Symmetric key ciphers (which are far more significant) rely on a variety of algorithms. The main use of public/private key is for exchanging symmetric keys.

In short, RSA (and similar) would be useless, but AES (and similar) would remain secure. The real problem would become one of securely exchanging symmetric keys.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268566)

One way you -might- be able to securely exchange keys using an RSA-style algorithm would be to chop the keys up. What I'm thinking is this:

N proxy servers, of which M receive part of the key using RSA or something similar. The rest get something random, but it's also encrypted using the same method. Each server then transmits what they get to the intended recipient the same way. You'd need some algorithm to generate what combination is the correct one (which then becomes vulnerable to attack itself) and some covert method of exchanging the seed information (less data than a OTP but still a serious problem) or the method is useless.

For the actual data, you have the data block also split into M fragments, with the N-M remaining proxies getting random data.

Since you cannot distinguish between a failed decrypt of a valid assemblage of packets and a valid decrypt of an invalid assemblage of packets, the number of possible combinations to try goes up factorially. For a large enough N and a small enough M, it should be possible to keep such a system ahead of quantum computers as it grows faster than exponentially.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267316)

The idea that quantum computers can magically crack encryption is a myth. In fact they are hardly very good at it at all.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (2)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267452)

That's incorrect. They can magically crack encryption based on integer factorization or discrete logarithms. There are potential speedups for other types of encryption. Symmetric ciphers like AES are believed to be safe.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267522)

That is incorrect. Those are just claims made by people who don't understand quantum computing. There have been no simulations proving even a light speedup in that field.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267690)

Says the social engineer from the NSA...

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (4, Informative)

stevelinton (4044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267336)

An Adiabatic Quantum Computer is quite a different beast from a quantum computer in the usual sense, and even if it can solve the same class of problems in polynomial time (not at all obvious at this stage) it isn't at all clear that 1 qubit in this machine does the same work as 1 traditional qubit.

They are, to be honest, being a little bit naughty calling this a quantum computer at all, although it does compute and has quanta, but so does my phone.

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267442)

Meh. Quantum computing, even at its *full* potential, is no threat to symmetric encryption. The recommended minimum key size will jump a moderate amount and you'll be all set again. The effect on asymmetric encryption depends on the type. Some could be severely compromised. BUT, seeing as operations are currently exceptionally fast for end users AND that asymmetric encryption is generally only used to *establish* symmetrically-protected channels over insecure networks, they could probably be jumped up by several orders of magnitude themselves without anything really bad happening. And if all else failed on the asymmetric side, an infrastructure for pre-shared keys isn't really all that difficult. It's just that we've never needed on before so it seems strange. But we already trust CA's to play their part in the asymmetric world - why wouldn't we trust them to act as a middle-man for symmetric key distribution?

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267544)

it can and can't at the same time.
next question.

Wrong question (1)

wurp (51446) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267804)

The real question is "Does the D-Wave 'quantum computer' do anything useful at all?"

See Scott Aaronson's opinions on the topic: http://blogs.forbes.com/alexknapp/2011/05/24/q-and-a-with-prof-scott-aaronson-on-d-waves-quantum-computer/ [forbes.com]

Aaronson is a brilliant quantum algorithm complexity professor for MIT. You can read his blog at http://www.scottaaronson.com/ [scottaaronson.com]

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267812)

So, can this thing crack all non-quantum encryption, then? I seem to remember reading about how that would only require 32 qubits or so. And whether it can or can't, if commercial offerings have come this far, how long has the NSA had a version that can crack all encryption?

I don't know the implications of these computers for modern cryptography, but assuming they can trivially break encryption it means the public will never get their hands on them. Governments and big corporations would have them (it's just people's privacy, after all), but regular people would not (it would put countries and big corporations at risk).

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (1)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268246)

Forget ciphering, imagine all the bitcoins you could mine with this thing!

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268308)

Noah asked, "Lord, what's a qubit?"

Re:So, how long has the NSA had one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268482)

Its easy. The computer simply goes to another parallel dimension where you chose not to encrypt your data and retrieves it free and clear.

Did some wiki-browsing... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267236)

Sounds like hell to program. You start by finding a complex hamiltonian with a ground state describing the solution to your problem, and it gets more math-filled from there. If you want to solve a problem with a quantum computer, you're going to need a quantum physicist to tell it what to do.

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (2)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267318)

So it's like fuzzy logic, only they got tired of having muppets run the IT department?

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267348)

That's a daily routine. Seriously. /a quantum physicist/

iQubit (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267354)

I guess I am just have to wait for the Apple Quantum Computer User Experience.

Re:iQubit (4, Funny)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268496)

I guess I am just have to wait for the Apple Quantum Computer User Experience

Me too -- in particular I'm looking forward to the quantum MWI version of FaceTime, which connects you to various alternate-universe versions of yourself, so you can compare notes and see who made the better decisions.

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (3, Insightful)

stevelinton (4044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267362)

A traditional digital computer is pretty hellish to program too if you take away all the props -- you have to find a set of bit values for the memory such this immense consrtructrion of hundreds of millions of gates, clocks, latches, etc. will evolve to give your answer in a reasonably ti,me.

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267400)

You start by finding a complex hamiltonian with a ground state describing the solution to your problem

I'm not a math whiz, but to me, this says: "You already know the answer to the problem"...
How can this device help you, if you already have the solution? Is it used for proving the validity, or similar?

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (3, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267548)

The basic idea is to enter "42" and see what happens.

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (5, Informative)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267782)

think instead, that solving the hamiltonian is equivalent to (or potentially "harder than") solving the original problem, so that you can translate the original problem into a hamiltonian problem. it doesn't mean that you know the answer of either, but you do know that the solution of the hamiltonian will match up to a solution of the original problem. this is the spirit of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_(complexity) [wikipedia.org]

very, very roughly, think of it like rewriting java, for example, as c. you may not know what the particular code actually DOES in an overall sense, or what it will output, but you can nevertheless rewrite it sort of mechanically (like a compiler would) if you know both languages. furthermore, it's feasible that translating the code is easier than devising the algorithm from scratch. this is basically a reduction. if you can "easily" rewrite any java code as c code, that means java is "reducible" to c. the theory of computation essentially deals with reductions, not of code, but of entire problem classes, which is where P, NP and all that come from.

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267828)

Quantum computers doesn't change what problems you can solve; It just does it more efficiently. So even in the traditional case, having an algorithm, you already know what you need to do in order to get the solution, but it takes years of computer time to get the answer. Same with the complex hamiltonian, the computation is trivial, it just takes a damn long time...

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (1)

stevelinton (4044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267862)

You start by finding a complex hamiltonian with a ground state describing the solution to your problem

I'm not a math whiz, but to me, this says: "You already know the answer to the problem"...

No. You can think of this as posing the question in a very specific way -- a little constructing a wire frame so that soap films on it
naturally form the shape of the best surface for some purpose.

The open question is what questions can in fact be posed this way?

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267874)

Actually, for the types of problems this can solve (mostly optimization problems, as I understand), it is not so difficult to do this. Similar ideas (on ordinary computers) have been used for a long time in computational physics, see e.g. Quantum Annealing [wikipedia.org]

Re:Did some wiki-browsing... (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268442)

I'm not a math whiz, but to me, this says: "You already know the answer to the problem"...

Only because you've never taken a physics class past the 100 level.

Lots of applied problems involve you already knowing the Hamiltonian and needing to find the ground-state solution. The process would be awkward for solving arbitrary problems, but for physical simulations it's pretty streamlined (much more so than writing a DE solver in C to solve the same problem).

Wiki (3, Insightful)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267240)

I attempted to get a basic understand of quantum computing from Wikipedia, and maybe find out how a quibit measured up to a traditional bit, and what adibatic meant.

Whelp...

I will never make fun of another old person who is unable to grasp the concepts of computing and computer interface that I use every day.

Re:Wiki (1)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267274)

Absolutely right. This stuff is totally alien. ... it's so totally alien that my BS alarms go off when I hear people talking about it. I've read lots of stuff talking about how quantum computers will work, how they'll change everything, etc. -- but they sound like science fiction. And yet here's a commercial version for sale. It just doesn't ring true with me.

Re:Wiki (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267346)

It may be *able* to do this, but just watch. You think the gap between good programmers and bad programmers is wide now... When a requirement for understanding Quantum computing is a solid probablistic understanding of quantum theory and the math background to translate a problem into a solvable equation... well for the most part every programmer I've ever met (minus a few Astrophysicists who work on the Kepler projects) are going to be fucking useless for this kind of work.

Re:Wiki (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267430)

...suddently, i'm interested in applying my 'gifted and talented' mind to programming. it always seemed so mundane and fit for binary-retard thinking before. god i'm such a pompous ass.

Re:Wiki (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267772)

I seem to recall that in the infancy of traditional computation, a similar level of sophistication was seen as the standard barrier to entry. Give quantum computing a few decades and any 12 year old kid will be able to whip up some quantum php and call themselves a quantum hacker.

Re:Wiki (3, Insightful)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267832)

the knowledge will be modularized and commercialized fairly quickly. in the 50s and 60s linear algebra was really hard because it hadn't been parsed out into an easy form - the useful stuff was all tied up with operator theory and the sort of understanding that geniuses have. fast-forward to now, and computing a matrix svd is a fairly standard task (even if you don't really have what a mathematician would call 'understanding').

similarly, quantum programming will most likely condense into a hierarchy of professional modules and life will go on. the structure of IT and computer engineering is almost totally is socioeconomic phenomenon and not a technical one...

Re:Wiki (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267386)

You do realize that a failure to understand something is not, rationally, reason to outright reject it.

Re:Wiki (1)

Burnhard (1031106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267728)

I sympathise with the guy. I just read the article about adiabatic quantum computation and didn't understand what the hell it was going on about. I've been an SD for ten years. If these things take off, I'm very definitely out of a job.

Re:Wiki (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268056)

I have a feeling it's going to be long time before we even have to worry about it. It will be specialized computational devices for a long time, then maybe some sort of new supercomputers. But it will be like IPv4 and IPv6, yes, the new quantum computers will be there, but you'll still be using dull ol' ordinary ones to talk to them.

That is until the quantum computers develop consciousness and wipe out all humans in favor of androids with Arnold Schwarzenegger's c.1984 physique.

Re:Wiki (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268476)

Tell that to Texas wrt evolution.

Re:Wiki (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268576)

There are those who see their ignorance as a failing, and then there are those who see it as virtue. The religionist nuts in Texas are in the latter category.

Re:Wiki (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268370)

a process is called adiabatic if it doesn't mess up its surroundings "at all" (in the real world: almost).
Think of a bathtub full of tennis balls. What happens when you throw another tennis ball in it?
The answer is: it depends on how you throw it.
(I'd say a bathtub full of water, but with a fluid, fluid dynamics are much more obvious than thermodynamics, so it would be a bad example)

"...for it's...of it's first...." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267242)

Ouch, that stung.

Hold the freaking phone (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267278)

Hold the freaking phone. Last I heard, quantum computing was still in it's infancy and people had a hard time reading even 8 qbits or what ever. I don't remember reading about any fully functional quantum computers until just now. Is this just a well kept secret or has we finally entered the era of the quantum computer (at least for large organizations ala the mainframes of old).

Re:Hold the freaking phone (3, Interesting)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267388)

Adiabatic quantum computing is somewhat different from "regular" quantum computing. Also, places like Slashdot don't get every minor update to the state of the art. Might have something to do with all the people who say, "wake me up when there's a commercially-available version of this." Well, here's your commercially-available version of this.

Re:Hold the freaking phone (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267496)

Also, places like Slashdot don't get every minor update to the state of the art

Yeah, but a jump from 4 or so qubits to 128 is a quantum leap (pardon the pun), not a minor update.

Re:Hold the freaking phone (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268488)

t a jump from 4 or so qubits to 128 is a quantum leap (pardon the pun)

Great, first people forget what irony is and now puns? Using a word to mean what it means is NOT a pun.

Re:Hold the freaking phone (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268502)

... but a jump from 4 or so qubits to 128 is a quantum leap ...

Sorry, but a jump from 4 or so qubits to 128 is a very large leap, not an incredibly tiny one like you just said.

Re:Hold the freaking phone (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267520)

My understanding is that d-wave's product isn't a general-purpose quantum turing machine, and that the applications are rather specific (optimization problems). It's not a general-purpose quantum computer.

Re:Hold the freaking phone (1)

TheDauthi (219285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268202)

These are marketing qubits.

For a limited time only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267308)

Each purchase of D-Wave's 128-qubit adiabatic quantum machine will include a free copy of Duke Nukem Forever while supplies last.

My Feelings (0)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267328)

I'm simultaneously for and against this.

A proper science lab should be receiving the first one, not a weapons development company, and not because of Skynet, but on grounds of basic research principles.
On the other hand, at least we have one...

Re:My Feelings (4, Funny)

wagonlips (306377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267436)

I'm simultaneously for and against this.

Schrödinger? Is that you?

Re:My Feelings (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267512)

meow

Re:My Feelings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267714)

meow

Good one :o)

I'm wondering if the price and warranty are linked to the half-life of the Proton or just marked "Guess?". I'd imagine the Marketing Department would not see any irony in the whole thing.

Re:My Feelings (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268128)

I'm simultaneously for and against this.

Schrödinger? Is that you?

I'd rather not know.

Re:My Feelings (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268520)

Schrödinger? Is that you?

If it is, please tell us where you are, but for God's sake don't tell us how fast you're moving!

Re:My Feelings (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267524)

Money = force

I would also like to add that it is the first COMMERCIAL model. Researches do have research grade designs and models.

Re:My Feelings (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267808)

Yeah, except throughout the history of the supercomputer the primary use has been calculating nuclear bomb yields...

Re:My Feelings (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268514)

The whole history of computer development in general has been weapons development (well, to the extent that we date computer development as starting in the code-breaking/nuclear bomb efforts of WWII, rather than with Babbage--although Ada Lovelace's program to compute Bernouli numbers certainly would have had weapons engineering applications).

Bad Translation (4, Funny)

sprior (249994) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267356)

I found the D-Wave white papers very hard to understand, but I'm sure it's because of a poor translation from the original Vulcan to (sortof) English.

Time Travel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267402)

Lets hope they don't use the quantum computer to travel back to 14th century france. Then we might have some problems.

I don't get this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267448)

I don't understand any of this. They have a website about a quantum computer and they talk about
the API with which to program it. This must be a hoax, but it's an elaborate one, because they first
started this stuff in 2005 (if I remember correctly) with a supposed demonstration of the quantum
computer solving a sudoku puzzle.

Star Trek??!! (1)

killfixx (148785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267472)

I feel like a second-grader learning calculus. When I learned calculus, I was in 9th grade . My 7th grade son is already learning statistics and discrete functions. I was born 30 years too soon. I took AP Physics! Where was my Ising model, Hamiltonion operator, or Eigenvalues? Why must I suffer for being born too soon?

Re:Star Trek??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267538)

You should be asking when the first Star Trek or spacewar game will be written for the quantum computer!

squishy hand movements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36267578)

a cluster of fleshlights moaned out in pain!

FEEL the FORCE....

feel it!

But... (1)

IonSwitz (609514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267584)

..does it run Quake?

1 qbit (1)

aahpandasrun (948239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267610)

How much is a 1 qbit quantum computer? The possibilities are endless!

Maybe it did, maybe it didn't (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36267644)

Maybe "Lockheed Martin Purchased First Commercial Quantum Computer."

Maybe it didn't.

Until the invoice is observed it's both at the same time.

What will lockheed do with it? (1)

molo (94384) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268028)

Anyone know what Lockheed's plans are for this system? Complex fluid dynamics? Something else?

The press release [dwavesys.com] only says ".. applied to some of Lockheed Martin's most challenging computation problems."

-molo

Re:What will lockheed do with it? (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268518)

Anyone know what Lockheed's plans are for this system? Complex fluid dynamics? Something else?

It will be used for solving difficult budget problems: in particular, it will optimize the padding-out of this year's expenditures to match the funds allocated, so that next year's budget doesn't get reduced. (/cynic)

lame (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268108)

Like the IEEE says, it's bullshit [ieee.org] in the sense that it's not quantum in the sense usually understood and it's no more effective than a traditional computer. What is more, as with all snake-oil, it has not allowed peer review.

It would be interesting to see how the money flows from the citizen-taxpayer via the government through Lockheed into D-Wave and finally back to the people in government who set up the purchase.

Re:lame (1)

barlevg (2111272) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268556)

I think calling it "snake oil" is going a step too far, but I'm sure Lockheed is buying it mainly for the bragging rights.

Think of it as a big, big toy. I'm sure there's a team of Lockheed scientists who are going to have a BLAST seeing what this puppy can do, and I'll bet that they find that, for some arbitrarily specific problem, it's insanely useful, but for everything else...

The other thing to keep in mind is that I'm sure the first commercially available digital computers weren't particularly more useful, but it's an important step.

Woosh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268266)

What was that?

Ha Ha Ha

I have a friend ... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36268278)

Who knows a little about quantum computers and is quite interested in them. He says that from all he can find out about D-Wave on the internet they seem like a scam (ie they do not actually have any computers, nor is their any evidence they are linked to any of the experts in the field). Will be interested to see what he thinks of this article.

Can someone tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36268448)

Can someone tell me a specific example of something this can do quicker than a classical computer?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...