Beta
×

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!

Google and NASA Snap Up D-Wave Quantum Computer

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the at-least-we-think-they-did dept.

Supercomputing 108

ananyo writes "D-Wave, the small company that sells the world's only commercial quantum computer, has just bagged an impressive new customer: a collaboration between Google, NASA and the non-profit Universities Space Research Association. The three organizations have joined forces to install a D-Wave Two, the computer company's latest model, in a facility launched by the collaboration — the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab at NASA's Ames Research Center. The lab will explore areas such as machine learning — useful for functions such as language translation, image searches and voice-command recognition. The Google-led collaboration is only the second customer to buy computer from D-Wave — Lockheed Martin was the first."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What language do you write code in? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739777)

I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.

Re:What language do you write code in? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739821)

I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.

Objective Quark.

Re:What language do you write code in? (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43739941)

I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.

Objective Quark.

Or C±±

Re:What language do you write code in? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739975)

I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.

Objective Quark.

Or C±±

Or subjective c

Re:What language do you write code in? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740311)

Well, it's NASA, so C* (C star) surely?

Re:What language do you write code in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740347)

Lame...

Re:What language do you write code in? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740495)

That's an MP3 encoder, not a Programming language, and it's not even any kind of wordplay either.

Re:What language do you write code in? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740469)

Python, actually. The quantum part is treated like an oracle.

Re:What language do you write code in? (1)

spyke252 (2679761) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741229)

Python, actually. The quantum part is treated like an oracle.

Just when my mod points expire- this is correct.

Re:What language do you write code in? (2)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744501)

Indeed. [dwavesys.com] The object you import is even called BlackBoxSolver.

Re:What language do you write code in? (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740791)

Both at the same time, surely?

Re:What language do you write code in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740493)

I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.

The only interface that D-Wave provides is function calls in MATLAB.

Re:What language do you write code in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740567)

Machine code; one step lower than assembly and one step above circut design. With a new archetecture you're starting from scratch, and have to write assemblers and assemble the assemblers by hand, then use the assemblers to assemble compilers. Then you can make any language you want and write in that language.

Re: What language do you write code in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740975)

Python, Matlab, or through a web interface.

Re:What language do you write code in? (3, Funny)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741181)

SILENCE, if it was a real Quantum computer then every program is already written in every language known and to be yet invented.

Re:What language do you write code in? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741453)

This isn't a true quantum computer, it just uses the tunnel effect to minimize functions. So presumably you have to feed some functions to it and it gives back its minimum.

Re:What language do you write code in? (1)

bbelt16ag (744938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742959)

then what good is it? whats it better at then conventional systems?

Re:What language do you write code in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43743185)

Minimizing functions? You could at least read the fucking comment you're responding to.

Or Not (5, Funny)

A10Mechanic (1056868) | about a year and a half ago | (#43739783)

Or Not. I can't tell.

Re:Or Not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739875)

*Clapping*
Give it up for Richard Fuynnyman everyone.

Welcome (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739789)

I for one welcome our new quantum computer overlords.

Re:Welcome (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740275)

I for one welcome our new quantum computer overlords.

Don't hold your breath, I predict that there is a world market for maybe five such computers.

Re:Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740509)

Because V&V is sooooo niche...

Re:Welcome (1)

weakref (2554172) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740551)

I predict that "640K ought to be enough for anybody".

Re:Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741207)

Good job! You got the joke!

Re:Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740629)

Don't hold your breath, I predict that there is a world market for maybe five such computers.

Nah, it's similar to Gate's prediction some 20 years ago that there will always be enough just few kilobytes of RAM. At other end IBM predicted not long ago that quantum computers will be on our desks by end of current decade, and i tend to believe them

Re:Welcome (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744101)

Wasn't it IBM who predicted a world market for 5 computers back in the day. Looks like they're overcompensating, so on average they're estimates come out pretty close.

Finally (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739827)

We can solve those traveling salesman problems that have been plaguing our society for hundreds of years!

Re:Finally (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740539)

Remember, Google is involved here. Finally we can data-mine all the intimate details of all users!

Re:Finally (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743249)

We can solve those traveling salesman problems that have been plaguing our society for hundreds of years!

I realize you're joking, but they actually are important problems to solve. If you have 10,000 solder points, and you need your equipment to solder as fast as possible, what route do you take?

Re:Finally (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43745159)

We can solve those traveling salesman problems that have been plaguing our society for hundreds of years!

I realize you're joking, but they actually are important problems to solve. If you have 10,000 solder points, and you need your equipment to solder as fast as possible, what route do you take?

Solving this type of real world problem with a mathematically perfect solution usually isn't necessary. A far simpler and quicker statistical method that produces a solution that is only 99.99% of optimal is generally more than adequate. Same applies to other areas of manufacturing such as quality assurance, in other disciplines such as physical layer communications systems, and even in mathematics such as prime generation.

It always comes down to how perfect the solution actually needs to be, and how easy it is to get close to or reach that perfect solution.

How does it work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739855)

How does a quantum computer make a quantum go 0 or 1? Does it make a quantum?

Re:How does it work? (1)

riT-k0MA (1653217) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741277)

The way I understand it is: Strong 1, weak 1, weak 0 and strong 0.
In normal binary, if 1 was North and 0 was South then quantum would have North, North-East, South and South-East, or something along those lines. I'm not even sure it's even limited to four.
This [wikipedia.org] may help.

Price? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739867)

The D-Wave 1 was approximately $10 million:

https://dwave.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/siri/ [wordpress.com]

From a recent Financial Post article profiling D-Wave:

        If computers could learn, grow and evolve the same way humans can, the world would be a much better place, Dr. Geordie Rose argues. The co-founder and chief technology officer of Burnaby, B.C.-based quantum computing firm D-Wave Systems Inc. contends that humanity would gain unprecedented access to education, health care and information if only his company’s technology were more widely adopted. Having sold its first quantum computing system to Lockheed Martin Corp. for approximately $10-million, the doctor of theoretical physics spoke to Financial Post technology reporter Jameson Berkow about his plan to change the world. The following is an edited transcription of their conversation.

Re:Price? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740185)

If computers could learn, grow and evolve the same way humans can

...then they'd be entitled to the same rights as humans, and we'd be even more overpopulated.

humanity would gain unprecedented access to education, health care and information if only his company’s technology were more widely adopted

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha what a bunch of bullshit. There's only one thing technology does: set the bar higher in the struggle for survival.

Re:Price? (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743803)

There's only one thing technology does: set the bar higher in the struggle for survival.

As well as allow you to reach a wider audience with your crack pot theories, I suppose

Re:Price? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744689)

.... if only his company’s technology were more widely adopted

If only he'd freely license the patents...

Not a true quantum computer (2)

mblase (200735) | about a year and a half ago | (#43739909)

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/loser-dwave-does-not-quantum-compute [ieee.org] ...but it does seem to exploit some of the benefits. Who knows, maybe these "hybrid" quantum machines are going to be more practical than "true" quantum computers.

IEEE Spectrum apologised (5, Informative)

Simon321 (1933722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43739969)

IEEE Spectrum apologised for that article:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/computing/hardware/big-win-for-the-losers-at-dwave [ieee.org]

It's a quantum computer all right, just not a universal quantum computer. But it should still show quantum speedups for discrete optimization problems.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/04/further-proof-for-controversial-quantum-computer.html [nature.com]

So far, tests have been very promising:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829173.500-commercial-quantum-computer-leaves-pc-in-the-dust.html [newscientist.com]

If it continues to speed up like this, there are some very exciting times ahead of us!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/8054771535/ [flickr.com] (Rose's Law, the quantum computer equivalent of Moore's Law)

Re: (2)

Simon321 (1933722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740051)

Wish i could edit this, it wasn't really an apology, but they are at least in doubt about calling them a loser. Several papers back up the quantum computer claim as you can read in the nature blog post.

Re:IEEE Spectrum apologised (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740491)

It's a quantum computer all right, just not a universal quantum computer.

As I understand it, there is a procedure (although an impractical one) to transform any problem into an adiabatic one. So, it's a universal computer, at least.

Re:IEEE Spectrum apologised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740983)

Wow those links are bad. Are they all just nobodies on arxiv with no peer review or people affiliated with d-wave?

Re:Not a true quantum computer (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740015)

It's not a quantum computer, it's a quantum annealer. It can't run general purpose quantum computer algorithms like Shor's Algorithm but it can find the optimum values for a specific class of problems, the same ones that are sometimes solved with software simulations of quantum annealing appropriately enough. The latest research shows that it outperforms a regular computer by several orders of magnitude on those problems, but it remains to be seen if it performs better than an ASIC chip designed for the task.

Re:Not a true quantum computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741419)

Stop the presses. A multimillion dollar device beats a device that costs 100x less. Can they be anymore biased in their benchmarks?

Re:Not a true quantum computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742795)

It beat several thousand PCs without using several thousand PCs worth of space or electricity. Assuming you could do the problem on a cluster setup, it favorably compares pricewise to a Top 500 supercomputer.

So yeah I'm impressed.

Re:Not a true quantum computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742503)

I read that they compared it by running three different algorithms on a "high end PC". It was 3600 times faster than the fastest algorithm on the PC. Didn't really say if they were comparing it to the highend PC's CPU or its Tri-SLI GPUs though.

Re:Not a true quantum computer (1)

Rufty (37223) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740327)

Hybrid machines seem to be the way to go, pure quantum computers are cumbersome for such things as addition [arxiv.org] .

Re:Not a true quantum computer (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741139)

So basically like a GPU or math co-processor.

Quantum porn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43739929)

On your screen before you even thought of searching for it!

Re:Quantum porn! (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43739959)

On your screen before you even thought of searching for it!

Quantum porn - you can't tell both what position they are in and how fast they are going at the same time

Re:Quantum porn! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740127)

I'm going to walk over to my other computer, just so I can mod you up.

Hmmmm (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43739933)

Two articles deep:

Instead it does something called ‘annealing’, where an answer is arrived at by looking for the lowest energy state of the bits in the computer chip ...

  The D-Wave Two computer, which has 512 quantum bits, is designed to tackle classification-type problems that are useful in machine learning and image recognition. Essentially it is good at determining the best ways to sort things into different categories, such as X-ray scans that contain an image of a bomb and ones that don’t.

This is partitioning using neural network-based pattern recognition techniques.

The annealing is simulating raising the temperature of your variable encoding, which amounts to throwing your solutions around more violently on the gradient descent space in hopes of exiting your local minimum and finding a lower one.

Awesome (1)

Andrio (2580551) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740001)

"Quantum computer", "Google, NASA", "Artificial Intelligence", "Lab"

Man, there's nothing in this story that doesn't sound awesome.

Re:Awesome (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740065)

Except what they obviously intend to use it for - large scale decryption of SSL traffic so the data can be mined by Google (for profit) and the Government (to oppress).

Re:Awesome (3, Insightful)

Kiwikwi (2734467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740799)

Except what they obviously intend to use it for - large scale decryption of SSL traffic so the data can be mined by Google (for profit) and the Government (to oppress).

If that's their intent, they'll be sorely disappointed, since D-Wave's machine has only 512 qubits (where as all new SSL certificates are at least 1024 bits). More importantly, the machine is not a general purpose quantum computer and can't run Shor's algorithm.

Besides, NSA is already able to break 1024 bit RSA using conventional computing (not to mention the possibility of much cheaper side channel attacks). See e.g. Schneier [schneier.com] .

If we are optimistic, it may be possible to factor a 1024-bit RSA modulus [before 2020] by means of an academic effort on [a] limited scale.

- Kleinjung et al., 2010 [iacr.org] , my emphasis

The same paper gives an estimated difficulty of 2 million CPU years for factoring 1024 bit RSA. Sure, that's about $500 million on Amazon EC2, but the NSA have dedicated data centers, dedicated ASICs, smarter algorithms, and money to burn. Realistically, breaking 1024 bit RSA may be as cheap as $50,000 a pop to the NSA... and remember, they only have to break it once per HTTPS certificate, not once per connection.

(As for Google, they're already have your email and knows every page you visit that contains a YouTube video, a +1 button, or Google Analytics... Why would they waste time breaking RSA when the sidechannel attacks are cheap and plentiful?)

Meme splat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740071)

But can it run Crysis? Will it shove hot grits down my pants? Can they make a Beowulf cluster out of them?

Re:Meme splat! (1)

etash (1907284) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740339)

the 90s called and want their memes back

Re:Meme splat! (1)

mblase (200735) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740409)

the 90s called and want their memes back

They what? Did you warn them about 9/11!?

Re:Meme splat! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741147)

Xkcd called, it wants its lame anti-meme back.

Re:Meme splat! (1)

Al3s (2917287) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741019)

More important: is it good for mining bitcoins?

Scam? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740213)

I've seen many people saying these guys are full of waste byproducts....and yet some mighty big players are buying these suckers. wtf?

Did the quantum computing age begin and (almost) nobody noticed?

Re:Scam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740847)

Yes. Most of D-Wave's cred built over 2 months.

Re:Scam? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740943)

and yet some mighty big players are buying these suckers.

Few people will spend $10M without doing their homework (outside of Congress). Then again, $10M to maintain a competitive advantage over the competition is within many organizations' budgets.

Did the quantum computing age begin and (almost) nobody noticed?

TIME Magazine never covered the beginning of anything. But as the Spectrum interview says, they've sold a partnership with these organizations, and that their chips aren't big enough yet to solve their entire problems, yet, but presumably when they get there the early partners will be the market leaders because they started now.

Curiously absent are the academic institutions - they've certainly spend more than $10M (in inflation adjusted terms, at least) on computers before. To open up an entire new class of computation should justify that level of expense again. The elephant in the room being that most CS departments don't tackle big stuff anymore; they're happy to nibble at the cheap edges.

Re:Scam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741513)

I can see the job description now.

Looking for quantum programmer, must have 10+ years of programming qubits. $50k plus benefits

Re:Scam? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741889)

10 Mill is not a lot I know on large company that spent £1,000,000 redeveloping an existing system in Oracle because Oracle was corporate standard and because some one was playing politics going for promotion and needed to have run a project of that size to tick the boxes.

Re:Scam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742973)

wonder when face book will buy 10 of them for instagram

Re:Scam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742103)

TIME Magazine never covered the beginning of anything.

Well maybe they should get on that.... :)

Re:Scam? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744715)

Will spending $10M on traditional computers be a better investment though. Can one of these computers perform better than a small datacentre?

Re:Scam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741091)

There are a very small handful of people qualified to say if this thing is real or not, and so far I haven't seen any of them involved in buying one of these pieces of junk.

Re:Scam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742511)

A bunch of friends of mine from physics graduate school went into quantum computing, while I went into a different field. So while I'm not completely up to date on quantum computing myself, I did talk to them a bit about this device not too long ago. Of course they would not be involved in buying one, because they are all researching different, more general quantum computers and this device would do nothing for them. They get upset that it is called a quantum computer because it gets confused with what they are working on when there is little overlap. Regardless, it is still seems to be a computer that uses some quantum behavior, and while it is not useful to people researching quantum computers, as typically covered by the news, it still may have its own use. The question seems to be, while it is faster than a general purpose processor for specific algorithms, is it faster than a classical electronics custom chip?

Re:Scam? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741969)

Yes. This is what happens when you have technology trade agreements with EBEs in exchange for human flesh (DNA).

The military industrial complex gets this stuff and plays with it for 50 to 100 years. Then it gets put into mainstream markets through companies like this or simultaneous discoveries across the globe. Things like that.

Re:Scam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742589)

hmmm...

Exactly what grade is the aluminum that makes up your hat? I ask because unless it meets certain standards then 'big brother' is freely reading/programming you.

Just curious...

Not a scam, just not a quantum computer (1)

l2718 (514756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744799)

This is definitely not a scam. This company built a device which uses quantum-mechanical effects to quickly solve simulated annealing problems. They get a huge speedup in solving quatum annealing problems — which is what the customers are paying for. The customers understand exactly what they are buying -- no shenanigans here.

However, D-Wave's publicity is rather dishonest. They call their device a "quantum computer" and issue press releases with that term, despite the fact that their device is definitely not a quantum computer in the sense that theoretical computer scientists use the word. It may be that we need to redefine what "quantum computer" means, especially since D-Wave are the only ones with a product on the market that uses quantum mechanics in a computation, but so far this hasn't changed.

In other news android coming to quantum computers (1)

youn (1516637) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740355)

I can't wait until I play angry birds on there... with birds that are there and not there at the same time. woohoo

Why? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740555)

For those of you wondering this, I looked into it. Their current model is slightly slower than current traditional PCs and does absolutely nothing that they can't. So why exactly is anyone buying one of these?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43741027)

Only if you define "slightly slower than" to include 3600 times faster. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829173.500-commercial-quantum-computer-leaves-pc-in-the-dust.html

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742983)

I think they might be comparing it to CPU performance alone though, making it not really faster than a comparable cluster of "PCs".

Re:Why? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744759)

It costs $10M. It should be compared to a cluster of 100's of GPU's.

Re:Why? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741613)

This is why. [flickr.com]

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43746477)

The "faster than all computers" / "faster than the universe" part only applies to real quantum computers that have entangled qubits. It does not hold for the type of "quantum" computers that D-Wave makes.

Bitcoin (2)

ultranova (717540) | about a year and a half ago | (#43742559)

So why exactly is anyone buying one of these?

For Bitcoin mining. NASA needs to fund itself somehow.

Re:Why? (1)

Molochi (555357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743601)

Found the system specs for the test PCs, I wouldn't call them High End PCs except in the sense that the price was high end. The Xeon X5550 system appears to even be underclocked 1GHz below it's normal speed of 2.66/3.06GHz.

Still, it'd take a big cluster of them to equal the performance of the V6. That's worth it right there.

http://www.cs.amherst.edu/ccm/cf14-mcgeoch.pdf [amherst.edu]

"All software solver tests were carried out on a suite of
seven Lenovo ThinkStation S30 0568 workstations, each containing
one Intel Xeon E5-2609/2.4GHz Quad-Core processor
with 16GB RAM. The operating system was Ubuntu
64-bit 12.04 LTS.

Blackbox runs on a Lenovo d20 workstation containing
two Intel Xeon X5550@1.6GHz Quad-Core processors with
16GB RAM. The operating system is Fedora 15. The number
of hardware samples per main loop iteration was set
to k = 1000 and the stopping rule was set to 107 function
evaluations.

The QA algorithm was run on a hardware chip named
Vesuvius 5 (V5) that contains 439 working qubits.
It is a challenging problem to nd precise, accurate, and
commensurable runtime measurements for these diverse solution
strategies. We adopted the following conventions.
All software runtimes are Unix CPU times in units of seconds.
The Matlab front end started timing immediately
before solver invocation and stopped immediately upon return:
thus the tasks carried out by the front end (including
all I/O) are not included in our time measurements. All software
tests were run on empty systems (with no competing
user processes), measuring one solver on one instance, running
on one core at a time. The Intel hyperthreading option
(which is known to produce timing anomalies) was turned
o. In addition to total CPU times, most tests produced
\history" trace data, by which each solver recorded time and
solution cost whenever a better solution was found."

Re:Why? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744813)

measuring one solver on one instance, running
on one core at a time.

Sounds like they compared their quantum computer with a single core of a Xeon E5-2609/2.4GHz, not all 4 in the test system.

Google = CISPA Sell-Outs. (1)

crhylove (205956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43740627)

Soo.... Now The NSA can get into our quantum computers too. YAY!

Re:Google = CISPA Sell-Outs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740801)

NASA, not NSA, as in the people who traveled to the moon. Genius.

Re:Google = CISPA Sell-Outs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740961)

I think GP is saying Google -> NSA, not NASA=NSA

Re:Google = CISPA Sell-Outs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742071)

3 letters or 4 letters, it doesn't seem to be a big difference. Except that the 3 letters seem to be better funded....

Q.A.I Lab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43740891)

If one of the folks working there is named Brackman, I will proceed to soil myself.

Re:Q.A.I Lab? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742193)

The baseball player?

Does anybody know... (1)

spyke252 (2679761) | about a year and a half ago | (#43741307)

what happened to the Vesuvius? [wired.com]

Re:Does anybody know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43742965)

It collapsed under the weight of all the buzzword heavy press releases.

D-Wave still does not have a quantum computer (2)

Xerxes314 (585536) | about a year and a half ago | (#43743443)

Anyone interested in the D-wave story should be reading this article where Scott Aaronson explains the meaning of D-Wave's current results [scottaaronson.com] .

The takeaway points are:

  1. D-Wave's machine does demonstrate entanglement and quantum annealing
  2. There is no speed advantage whatsoever for quantum annealing over classical simulated annealing
  3. A correctly optimized version of classical annealing is actually faster than D-wave's solution
  4. D-Wave will only be able to make this machine work as a quantum computer (with the attendant speed gains) by implementing error-correction and other improvements that D-Wave have been loudly deriding for their entire history

Re:D-Wave still does not have a quantum computer (0)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | about a year and a half ago | (#43744779)

According to this article [arstechnica.com] , it actually is much faster than conventional computers... but only for problems that can be mapped to it well, and currently a lot of problems don't fall into that category.

Re:D-Wave still does not have a quantum computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43745849)

Please READ the posted article, it explains why the article YOU linked was out-of-date even before it went public.

Re:D-Wave still does not have a quantum computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43746029)

To clarify, the Ars Technica article has failed to consider correctly optimized classical annealing codes. Unsurprisingly, for a sufficiently shitty implementation X, implementation Y always offers speedup over X.

Ob car analogy: Our Yugo is an awesome sports car because it can travel many times faster than other kinds of transportation (where we choose the other kind of transportation to be this mule).

My next computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744417)

Will have a dual core quantum processor.

Re:My next computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43744445)

Oh, and it will be 64 Qbits

Funny my Captcha is crockery

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?