×

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!

D-Wave Announces Commercially Available Quantum Computer

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the you-either-have-one-or-you-don't dept.

Hardware 133

New submitter peetm writes "Computing company D-Wave has announced they're selling a quantum computing system commercially, which they're calling the D-Wave One. The D-Wave system comes equipped with a 128-qubit processor designed to perform discrete optimization operations. A qubit is the basic unit of quantum information – analogous to a bit in conventional computing. For a broader understanding of how qubits work, check out Ars Technica's excellent guide."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

133 comments

So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412241)

I'm being serious by the way. :p Whats the performance like on these things?

Re:So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (5, Funny)

Splodgey (951669) | about 2 years ago | (#39412267)

I would imagine that operations are instant. Unfortunately all the data gets sent to an identical 'you' in a parallel universe.......

This article is a year old! (4, Funny)

SecurityTheatre (2427858) | about 2 years ago | (#39413139)

Apparently, a quantum computer allows slashdot editors to see backwards in time.

Since this article was posted.....

  5/17/2011 @ 2:34PM

Right, that's almost a year ago that this "announcement" took place.

Whoops!

Re:This article is a year old! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39413775)

This is a dupe anyway. The original was posted next week.

Re:So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (2)

frith01 (1118539) | about 2 years ago | (#39412305)

0 frames in Crysis, this is a math co-processor type deal initially. Just speeds up processing for a specific type of quantum algorithm initially. ( Quantum annealing , min/ max )

Re:So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412389)

Umm, ray tracing [wikipedia.org] is math.

Re:So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (4, Interesting)

julesh (229690) | about 2 years ago | (#39412909)

Yes, but it isn't the same type that D-Wave's processor solves, which is to say solving a particular class of differential equation in up to 16 8-bit variables.
Most of the time spent in ray tracing is actually in database searching (finding objects that a ray intersects with), which can be sped up by a quantum algorithm, but it isn't one that can be implemented on D-Wave's machine.

Re:So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (2)

donscarletti (569232) | about 2 years ago | (#39414265)

Umm, ray tracing is math.

All 3d rendering is based on maths, unfortunately ray tracing involves repeatedly traversing large data sets, something that any co-processor which is a long way from the main system memory bus is going to be shockingly bad at.

Re:So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412593)

How many frames will this get in Crysis?

All of them, at the same time. Until you look at it, at which point you'll just get one, which might not be the one you want.

Re:So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39416723)

How many frames will this get in Crysis?

All of them, at the same time. Until you look at it, at which point you'll just get one, which might not be the one you want.

Mission 1: Kill the cat and don't.

Re:So how many frames will this get in Crysis? (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#39415345)

Analogy? You get the same number of frames-per-second, but it also calculates the frames that would have resulted from a different input.

What we really need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412281)

Flying cars, I want my flying damn car already.

Re:What we really need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412411)

Won't happen until they are completely autonomous. No one is allowed to fly a car.

Re:What we really need (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#39412787)

True, first the virtual highway system will need to be completed. And then you won't live to be able to afford one - look at the Moller Skycar, it was over a half-million dollars and that price was probably optimistic. Then there's the legal shitstorm of allowing VTOL flying cars to take off and land in random places if you actually want to use it like a car and not a conventional small aircraft.

Re:What we really need (1)

suso (153703) | about 2 years ago | (#39417491)

This is the big flaw in people's desire to have flying cars. Why would I want a flying car if I can't fly it anywhere I want? That defeats the purpose.

Re:What we really need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412445)

Have you seen how people drive? If they can't handle 2D, I doubt they'd handle 3D safely. Better wait for the drivers (AI/Human) to improve first.

I'm not impatient to have a flying car crash through my roof or office window.

Re:What we really need (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | about 2 years ago | (#39412801)

I'm not impatient to have a flying car crash through my roof or office window.

Stop giving the Jetson era terrorists ideas! Do you want the TSA to grope you every time you need to run to the corner store for milk?

Quantum annealing (5, Informative)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about 2 years ago | (#39412295)

The name "quantum computer" is a bit misleading, since this thing as far as I understood is a classical computer that performs quickly an algorithm called quantum annealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing). If I understand correctly, the "128 qubits" part is snake oil, and it has nothing to do with the explanation of qubits given by Ars Technica in the other link.

Re:Quantum annealing (5, Interesting)

zrbyte (1666979) | about 2 years ago | (#39412399)

Exactly. The summary should of at least mentioned that there are serious controversies around the working and "quantumness" of the machine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems#Criticism [wikipedia.org] http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110531/full/474018a.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nature%2Frss%2Fcurrent+(Nature+-+Issue)&utm_content=Google+Reader [nature.com]

Re:Quantum annealing (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412659)

Sorry, I stopped reading at "should of". Hurts my eyes too much.

Re:Quantum annealing (-1)

Surt (22457) | about 2 years ago | (#39413201)

You really shouldn't of. Since English is a non-dead language, and this usage is now more common then the other, it is now the correct usage.

Re:Quantum annealing (4, Informative)

paimin (656338) | about 2 years ago | (#39413325)

"Should of" is not a usage, it's a misspelling of "should've". "Should've" is a usage.

Re:Quantum annealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39414461)

Nope, it's an artifact from Middle English, the root of which is still present in parts of Appalachia. Look up lengthening of open syllables.

Re:Quantum annealing (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39415275)

I did. It has nothing to do with this. While pronunciation of "should've" and "should of" are phonetically similar, there simply is no such thing as "should of"(which should, of course, be clear by now).

You are attempting to cover up for this erratum by distorting information. Please stop attempting to cite archaic linguistics that you don't understand.

Re:Quantum annealing (1)

superwiz (655733) | about 2 years ago | (#39418841)

Unless, of course, the etymology of "of" has it originating from "have". After all, the possessive apostrophe-s originates from "has". Are you certain that the other possessive form does not as well? Just listen to this yoda-esque: characters have people (which translates from yoda-esque to English as "people have characters"). Well, in the former form, if "have" is shortened into "of" to indicate possessive, you get the other plain English "characters of people". The progression would be something like "characters have people" --> "characters 've people" --> "characters of people." This would make the use of "of" instead of "have" an anachronism rather than incorrect grammar. But since the anachronism is long forgotten, everyone is taught that it is a mistake. It is, no question, a mistake in formal English. And while I agree that to those who have mastered the proper English the "should of" sounds very dissonant, the other AC may have a point. It may be still be an artifact.

Re:Quantum annealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39418037)

Or their both usages, depending on how you define usage. Oh, wait...

Re:Quantum annealing (1)

zrbyte (1666979) | about 2 years ago | (#39413335)

I personally don't like the "should of" either. But sometimes these things creep up on you.

Re:Quantum annealing (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 2 years ago | (#39415269)

I personally don't like the "should of" either. But sometimes these things creep up on you.

And then you hit them over the head with the brass section of the nearest orchestra.

Re:Quantum annealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39413347)

More common? Over my dead body!

while true {
# More common, here I come!
print("You should have thought about that!")
}

Re:Quantum annealing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39413381)

More common?? You really need to get out of your trailer park a bit more. There's a whole world out there, you know?

Re:Quantum annealing (0)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#39413949)

You really shouldn't of. Since English is a non-dead language, and this usage is now more common then the other, it is now the correct usage.

I could care less what idiotic changes Americans make to American English.

You have no idea how painful it was for me to write that. I know you couldn't care less, and I should have stopped myself.

Re:Quantum annealing (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 2 years ago | (#39419263)

Stop spreading bogus bullshit. The correct use is "should have", period. And just to make you feel a bit better about things, this also means that your mom might not actually be a whore, even though you've heard her called one by the majority of her boyfriends.

Re:Quantum annealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39413205)

"Exactly. The summary should of at least mentioned"

Should HAVE mentioned.

Re:Quantum annealing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412495)

I think the best chip out has only 2 qubits so far , by chip i mean a laaaarge chip.

Re:Quantum annealing (5, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | about 2 years ago | (#39412529)

As far as I'm aware the 128 "qubits" aren't entangled at all, which means it is useless for any of the quantum algorithms that one generally thinks of (Shor's algorithm for factoring, for example). It simply has 128 separate "qubits" that are queried individually, and is, essentially an augmented classical computer that gains a few minor advantages in some very specific algorithms (i.e. the quantum annealing algorithm) due to this qubit querying, but is otherwise indistinguishable from a really expensive classical computer for any other purpose.

First_post & !First_post (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412297)

This is simultaneously the first post and not the first post!

W00T!

Re:First_post & !First_post (2)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | about 2 years ago | (#39412643)

You see... you quantum computer is not fast enough yet.

Re:First_post & !First_post (2)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#39412897)

Au contraire!

Anyone with a basic knowledge of binary maths can see that First_post & !First_post equals !First_post, so in a roundabout (and almost certainly unintended) way, he's correct to not be the first post.

Re:First_post & !First_post (1)

quarterbuck (1268694) | about 2 years ago | (#39419139)

No, it doesn't.
First_post & !First_post equals false, which is a boolean. If ! is the same as !First_Post , then you must be defining "First_post" as "True".
That would lead to some odd conversations.
"Honey, did you let the cat out? "
"First Post"

binary fetishism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412349)

If this system uses qbits, why are there a power of two?

Re:binary fetishism (1)

Surt (22457) | about 2 years ago | (#39413223)

Because at some point you have to translate the solution to a binary format in order to realize it. Also, it's still easier to lay out the circuits that way, basically all of the tools are optimized for binary layouts.

Re:binary fetishism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39415387)

Wow, you are so full of shit. Interestingly, I already have you as a foe.

Imagine... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412351)

Imagine a beowulf cluster? Anyone... ahh.. at least I'm Anonymous.

QC Course on youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412357)

For those that want some more info I can advise the "Quantum computing for the determined" channel by Michael Nielsen:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1826E60FD05B44E4

posting AC coz I'm on a public WiFi.

Re:QC Course on youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39415737)

posting AC coz I'm on a public WiFi.

Paranoid much?

Some day it may even be able to run the linux (0, Troll)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39412377)

I witnessed, first hand just the other day, a demonstration of a machine loading up the linux, and several points piqued my interest for sure.

  Firstly, the machine loaded into the Microsoft boot sequence prior to loading the linux. This is the segment of the operating system which counts down the memory, and configures the A:, C: and D: drives prior to loading the Microsoft windows. Although the machine did not display the familiar windows animation, it was obvious that the linux was freeloading off the back of this prior installation/boot sequence. The aforementioned demonstrator, upon further questioning, even admitted that 'Oh, That part is not the linux', and then went on to confuse the issue with technical jargon. However, one cannot mask a simple act of piracy with excessive verbosity. A fool and his lamb are worth 2 in the bush.

  Now - I will admit after some further research, that the linux is not in fact a complete copy of Microsoft Windows. My research indicates that it is in fact a copy of Unix. I bet you didnt know that young man ? Yes, its a straight copy of Unix, even down to copying verbatim codefiles straight from the source of Unix. I believe there is a court case in progress regarding this latest discovery. The magnitude of the theft is now becoming apparent.

  However, this remarkable fact may well uncover the answer to Ed Bott's mystery linux installation failure. You see, the Unix was designed to run within the VHF to UHF spectra (much like a radio), which is all well and good until you consider that modern computers run in the microwave range, at which regular radio reception starts to have serious issues. If one were to use a UHF receiver to tune in to a quad-phased broadcast in the Microwave spectra, one would fail miserably.

  I would wager a bet that Ed Bott's computing apparatus was a more contemporary design utilizing a 3GHz central processor unit (or CPU). Under such frequencies, the linux would literally tear itself apart, its code lacking the internal cohesion to sustain this extreme environment. The Microsoft by comparison, is streamlined and engineered to withstand this Microwave environment, thanks no doubt to the forethought of its designers.

  And of this there is ample evidence, which one can easily do an msn-search for and witness first hand. All of this evidence is on the public record, and cannot be denied.

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412451)

lol wat :/

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#39412453)

did you paste an old troll article because it's the article is old?

problem remains about these apparently that it's not really answered if they're more useful than your laptop for even the only thing they do.

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (1)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#39412527)

You need to find a better translator, because I have no clue what you just said.

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (1)

Loughla (2531696) | about 2 years ago | (#39412625)

Nah, it makes perfect sense:

One issue with these is that neither the random parent statement or the article in question actually answer if a so called quantum drive is actually more useful than your laptop for that thing they do.

I don't know about you, but I personally love Liv Tyler, Steve Zahn, Tom Hanks, Charlize Theron, Obba Babatundé, Giovanni Ribisi, and PETER FREAKING SCOLARI. Talk about an ALL STAR CAST!!!!

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (1)

MisterMidi (1119653) | about 2 years ago | (#39412745)

I can't decide if this is funny or scary, when trolls seem eloquent but are otherwise just nutjobs. Reminds me of some politicians :)

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39413275)

"All of this evidence is on the public record, and cannot be denied." We are Anonymous. Expect us.

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#39417515)

Mod him down some more, he's still at zero. Troll or stupid? Who knows? But the entire post is wildly wrong in all respects.

Firstly, the machine loaded into the Microsoft boot sequence prior to loading the linux. This is the segment of the operating system which counts down the memory, and configures the A:, C: and D: drives prior to loading the Microsoft windows. Although the machine did not display the familiar windows animation, it was obvious that the linux was freeloading off the back of this prior installation/boot sequence.

For those of you who have never used Linux, this ain't how it works. When you install Linux, whether dual-boot or Linux-only, the MBR (Master Boot Record used by Windows/DOS) is usually replaced by GRUB or LILO. Most Linux installations probably low-level format the entire disk, leaving no trace of Windows, because if we wanted Windows why in the hell would we install Linux?.

There are no A:, B:, or C: drives in Linux.

The aforementioned demonstrator, upon further questioning, even admitted that 'Oh, That part is not the linux', and then went on to confuse the issue with technical jargon.

You are NOT a nerd. Go the FUCK away. Your professor was probably demonstrating a Live CD, not an installation.

A fool and his lamb are worth 2 in the bush.

OK, you gave yourself away. Whether you are as incredibly stupid as your post makes you out to be isn't clear, but the fact that you're trolling is. That trite but mangled "old saying" is proof.

Now - I will admit after some further research, that the linux is not in fact a complete copy of Microsoft Windows. My research indicates that it is in fact a copy of Unix.

Your troll would work much better at the Yahoo news forums, where the denizens are as clueless as you. If you're trying to be funny, you failed miserably.

Now shoo, little boy, the grownups are trying to have a conversation here.

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39417947)

>Your troll would work much better at the Yahoo news forums

It worked on you.

--
BMO

Re:Some day it may even be able to run the linux (0)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39417997)

Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?
That sounds preposterous to me.

If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.

Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.

Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.

I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.

This has the same central problem as before (5, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | about 2 years ago | (#39412381)

This has the same central problem as before. D-Wave's computers haven't demonstrated that their commercial bits are entangled. There's no way to really distinguish what they are doing from essentially classical simulated annealing. And the set of problems which their machines can supposedly works on is an NP-hard problem minimization problem involving Ising spin where it isn't even clear that from a complexity standpoint that the the problem can be more quickly solved in general by a quantum system. (Essentially we don't know the relationship between BQP, the set of problems reliably solvable on a quantum computer in polynomial time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQP [wikipedia.org] and NP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP_(complexity) [wikipedia.org]. Recommended reading that is skeptical of D-Wave's claims is much of what Scott Aaronson has wrote about them. See for example http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639 [scottaaronson.com], http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=198 [scottaaronson.com] although interestingly after he visited D-Wave's labs in person his views changed slightly and became slightly more sympathetic to them http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954 [scottaaronson.com].

searching a phonebook with 10,000 names (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412469)

Takes only 14 attempts on a classical computer, not 5000! The article author must have never heard of a binary search.

Re:searching a phonebook with 10,000 names (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#39412671)

Unsorted data.

Re:searching a phonebook with 10,000 names (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#39413011)

Since when is a phone book unsorted data?

Re:searching a phonebook with 10,000 names (2)

cheaphomemadeacid (881971) | about 2 years ago | (#39413157)

well actually i doesn't really matter, you have mergesort (nlogn) and binarysearch(nlogn) for classic logarithmic search. So, yes, for an unsorted dataset the sort&search time would be 2nlogn

I sell 1024-qubit computer for only $100$!!!!Buy! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412503)

Dear Sir, I am a Nigerian Professor of great fame, and I will make this one-time offer to You only
for a ridiculous price of $100$ only!
My excellent quantum computer is cleverly disguised as an old Nike sneaker box,
so You can use it without fear of authorirties.
For further information, please send $10 to the following account for mail processing costs
and attach your credit card number for billing. ..........

Re:I sell 1024-qubit computer for only $100$!!!!Bu (2)

Amouth (879122) | about 2 years ago | (#39415611)

how do i know your real? I've never heard of a Nigerian Professor, i though everyone over there was a Prince

ars article (0)

FrootLoops (1817694) | about 2 years ago | (#39412507)

I stopped reading the ars article after

If the phonebook has 10,000 entries, on average you'll need to look through about half of them—5,000 entries—before you get lucky. A quantum search algorithm only needs to guess 100 times. With 5,000 guesses a quantum computer could search through a phonebook with 25 million names.

Using linear search on a phonebook (which is alphabetized) is preposterous. As the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Grover's algorithm [wikipedia.org] says,

Grover's algorithm is a quantum algorithm for searching an unsorted database with N entries in O(N^1/2) time and using O(log N) storage space

So, the example should have used an unsorted database. The article also implies the big-O constant is 1, which I find very suspicious.

I lie. I read on, but then stopped again after

During a quantum algorithm, this symphony of possibilities split and merge, eventually coalescing around a single solution.

I lie again. I continued reading on, but was forced to quit once and for all by

The crown jewel of quantum mechanics, the phenomenon of entanglement is inextricably bound to the power of quantum computers.

Can anyone suggest a math-filled crash course in quantum computing that doesn't wax poetic while screwing up the few technical details it gives? Something geared for someone with a little knowledge of quantum mechanics like some Hilbert space theory, knowledge of the roles of Hermitian operators and kets, etc. would be what I'm after.

Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412605)

I actually though of much the same idea a few months ago... however, this processor doesn't actually use "real" qbits, so the performance increase will not be nearly that of a true quantum computer.

Re:Heh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412681)

No, this processor uses Xzibitz...

guccifashionstore.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412611)

Gucci has been a fashion around the world by its elegance and luxury.
Gucci Bags actually can be loved by so many people not just for the beautiful appearance but exquisite design and trimming.
http://www.guccifashionstore.com/en/

The Author speaks (and cringes a bit) (5, Informative)

TheAlexKnapp (2599535) | about 2 years ago | (#39412645)

All - author of the piece speaking here. Yes, I'm aware of the D-Wave controversies, and talked with Scott Aaronson in a later piece at the time of the announcement. I'm cringing a little bit as I re-read this post because I know a heck of a lot more about quantum computing now than I did then. My take on D-Wave's computer now is that it's probably not a 'true' quantum computer in the sense that it involves any quantum speedup or entanglement. That said, I think that their annealing process is interesting in and of itself. I see their quantum computing tag as being akin to calling something '4G' in the wireless world. For those more interested in quantum computing, I updated the post to include some of the Q&A's I did about D-Wave at the time, as well as some of the quantum computing research I've covered since then, including some conversations with quantum computing researchers.

News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39412677)

Article published 5/17/2011 @ 2:34PM

Helpful background (2)

deadline (14171) | about 2 years ago | (#39412727)

For those who would like a gentle introduction to quantum computing take a look at: A Smidgen of Quantum Computing [clustermonkey.net]

Re:Helpful background (1)

the_leander (759904) | about 2 years ago | (#39414869)

I wish I had mod points for this, in one picture and a couple of paragraphs, the author has explained superposition, decoherence and entanglement in a manner even I can understand.

Thanks for posting this!

Useless without Entanglement (1)

mathimus1863 (1120437) | about 2 years ago | (#39412811)

Here's previous comments about what quantum computing really is: Informative! [slashdot.org]

D-Wave has always been known to be full of $#!+ when it comes to quantum computers. They've never demonstrated entanglement in their QCs which pretty much makes this a classical computer with a different medium for pushing information around. That's not to say that their research is complete shit. They are pioneering better ways to control qubits. But actual quantum computers are a major threat to modern day cryptography, and this "quantum computer" doesn't concern me at all.

but? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39413097)

A month and some change ago wasn't this article posted on slashdot, http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/04/140207/100000-prize-prove-quantum-computers-impossible?

Wait a Minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39413879)

Can it play Quake?

Has anyone ever built a car detector? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39414389)

"The car detector we developed remains competitive in quality to any car detector ever built". - www.dwavesys.com/en/apps-showcase-car.html

Proposing a standard (1)

Senescent Nerd (853343) | about 2 years ago | (#39415021)

Can't we just agree to ignore all announcements about quantum computers that aren't accompanied by both (a) the system reference manual pages for the instructions that manipulate the quantum hardware, and (b) performance numbers for a completely specified problem?

Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39415179)

"I can't let you do this, Dave."

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...