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!

Quantum Computer Works Better Shut Off

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the oh-my-head dept.

376

waimate writes "A New Scientist article relates how its possible to get answers from a quantum computer even when your program isn't running." From the article: "With the right set-up, the theory suggested, the computer would sometimes get an answer out of the computer even though the program did not run. And now researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have improved on the original design and built a non-running quantum computer that really works."

cancel ×

376 comments

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

Gee whiz (4, Funny)

JPamplin (804322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784121)

Wish I could do that with my "real" PC - save alot of power that way. Hard to see the screen though. ;-)

Re:Gee whiz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784138)

MOD PARENT DOWN!
Not funny at all. A shameless attempt to get first post, and a not funny one. Not funny hunny.

Re:Gee whiz - give the guy a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784162)

For Pete's sake, you're just mad becuase he got first post and you didn't. Funny or not, don't penalize the poor chap just because he happened to get his comment in before you did. Stop whining.

Re:Gee whiz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784188)

Boy, aren't you a whiney little bitch. Pissed that you didn't get the FP? Thought so.

Re:Gee whiz (2, Funny)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784144)

It reads to me like the computer isn't off, just the search program isn't running. Unless whatever optical sensors they're using to get they're answer aren't considered part of the computer.

I'll admidt I really don't understand what the article is talking about, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty...

Sure ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784219)

I am not pretty sure that it has anything to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty, I am certain that it does - however uncertain that may sound to you.

Re:Gee whiz (1)

ozbon (99708) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784237)

I guess in theory it's to do with the "While it's off in *this* place, it could be on in *that* place, and that means *that* one could've run the program".

Or something.

However, first thing I did was check that it wasn't dated 1st April...

Re:Gee whiz (4, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784399)

I'll admidt I really don't understand what the article is talking about, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty...

This sounds like zen buddhist computer science. Either that or something cooked up after a little too much of the green stuff. Still, makes me wonder. What kind of software do you run... erm, not run... on a computer that isn't running? Non-existent programs, like Duke Nukem Forever?

Hrm. That would open up a whole new industry. That'd be a fun profession, full-time vaporware programmer... hell, I'm gonna start right now. I'm officially announcing VaporWorks, an integrated word processor, spreadsheet, calendar and presentation software suite, not running on your computer in the near future. If anyone needs me, I'll be on the beach in Cancun spending my startup money, not busy working 16 hour days to get it ready.

Re:Gee whiz (0, Troll)

gwar11d2 (702724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784203)

Wow, non-running. I wonder if it will run windows Vista. How is Microsoft going to track which hardware its attached too with the power off? --disclaimer, this is my first attempt at a funny post, all others have failed.

It just sleeps on it. (3, Funny)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784123)

I sometimes get better answers to my own questions simply by sleeping on it.

Better when shut off! (3, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784124)

Neat! It's an updated Sinclair ZX-81!

I know my computer... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784126)

...works so much better when turned off.

Oh What Fun (2, Funny)

TechJones (781168) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784130)

Think of all the power we would save not playing MMOs with the PC turned on.

Northland : The best game ever released on Linux a (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784132)

http://www.tuxgames.com/details.cgi?gameref=124&nc =1140704155 [tuxgames.com]

Please buy this game and bring Linux to the masses

Next up: non-driving cars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784153)

nt

Of course it produces less errors! (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784134)

This scheme could have an advantage over straightforward quantum computing. "A non-running computer produces fewer errors," says Hosten. That sentiment should have technophobes nodding enthusiastically.

Duh! It's not running so it can't produce errors! :)

Thank you, Capitan Obvious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784211)

Thanks very much, he'll be here all week!

Don't forget to try the veal!

Great! (1)

CyberSnyder (8122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784137)

I know a guy that doesn't work much. Now I find out that he's really doing more than everyone else in bizarro quantum world.

Works better when shut off? (1)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784141)

So... It's running Windows? Hey, stop hitting me!

Seriously though, this statement made my day: "A non-running computer produces fewer errors," says Hosten.

How do I convince my boss that I can work this way, too?

Re:Works better when shut off? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784315)

Hey, stop hitting me!

Oh, sorry... but this is Abuse.

Gee, That's Useful(less?) (1)

courtarro (786894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784147)

How better to prove that your invention is useless than to have it be just as useful when shut off? That's gotta suck!

Quoi? (1)

BecomingLumberg (949374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784150)

And now researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have improved on the original design and built a non-running quantum computer that really works.

I just heard a pinging noise in my brain. I think something broke...

You gotta love it when you can build something that doesn't run but somehow it works. Ugh, I miss my erector set. Those were the good old days.

nothing new (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784151)

Windows works better for me turned off.

Hang on.. (3, Funny)

cameronking (914247) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784156)

<sarcasm>
How can it work better when its off than when its on. Its either on or off, it can't be on and off at the same time!
</sarcasm>

Re:Hang on.. (1)

Captain Zep (908554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784252)

Its either on or off, it can't be on and off at the same time!

Obviously you've never managed to get past the logical door.

Now, where is that thing that my aunt gave me that I don't know what it is...

Z.

That's easy! (2, Funny)

sczimme (603413) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784355)


How can it work better when its off than when its on. Its either on or off, it can't be on and off at the same time!

Schroedinger + Heisenberg == Schroedenberg's Uncertain Cat Principle

Re:Hang on.. (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784411)

In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!

"A non-running computer produces fewer errors," (1)

wetelectric (956671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784157)

"A non-running computer produces fewer errors," -- i'm sure microsoft will understand this phrase. I do not.

Deep Thought... (2)

Captain Zep (908554) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784161)

The computer says the answer is 42.

All we need to do now is program the question...

Z.

Re:Deep Thought... (4, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784360)

The computer says the answer is 42.

All we need to do now is program the question...


Duh. The question was: "An African, or a European Swallow?".

Think about THAT for a second. ;-)

what? (1)

freg (859413) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784168)

I'll give all my mod points to whoever can explain to me what Schrodinger's running cat has to do with my laptop's speed.

Schrodinger's running cat (2, Informative)

ingo23 (848315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784257)

The famous cat is a virtual experiment where the cat's life depends on an electron arriving to the cat's cage in a certain state. E.g. if the spin is up - the cat lives, if the spin is down - the cat dies. Since the electron can be put into a "mixed" state where it's "somewhat" up and "somewhat" down, the cat is also in a mixed state of life and death.

Now they replaced the inhumane process of killing cats with just letting the cat hit Enter to run the program (instead of killing it). So now instead of "somewhat" dead cat you have a program that is "somewhat" runnning.

Re:what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784264)

Well your laptop has nothing to do with Schrodinger's Cat. What I think what he was trying to say was that due to Superposition the quantum computer is both running and not running and the same time on a quantum level until you push the power button or you obsereve the on/off switch. But thats just my guess.

Read about Schrodinger's Cat at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodingers_cat [wikipedia.org]

news? (1)

AbstraktMethodz (906906) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784173)

this idea in quantum computing has been around for quite some time now

Re:news? (1)

harrkev (623093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784249)

Really? Well, can you explain this for the rest of us. I have a pretty good understanding of quantum theory for a lay-person -- and smoke comes out of my ears reading the article.

Re:news? (2, Interesting)

AbstraktMethodz (906906) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784376)

the article is rehashing an idea about resolving certain problems but creating your quantum coherence, but never collapsing that via direct measurement. there are bigger surprises out there than this in quantum computing.

Elitzur bomb-testing experiment [Was Re:news?] (1)

anandrajan (86137) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784410)

Really? Well, can you explain this for the rest of us. I have a pretty good understanding of quantum theory for a lay-person -- and smoke comes out of my ears reading the article.


OK, but first take a look at Elitzur-Vaidman's bomb testing experiment [wikipedia.org] which (I think but not sure) is the predecessor of these counterfactual repeated measurement experiments. .
.
.
.

Are we done? So, if you read the bomb testing experiment above, you'll see that you have a pretty good chance of detecting a live bomb without actually having the photon triggering it off. The basic idea of repeated measurements is that you can keep increasing the probability of detecting a potential live bomb without actually having the photon exploding it. Ta da, you have a counterfactual based experiment.


Watson to Holmes: "Holmes, but the dog did nothing at night time."
Holmes to Watson: "Precisely Watson, and that is very significant" or somesuch.

Re:news? (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784419)

You're statement makes me think that your correct. Their seems to be no way to determine weather or not there they're.

Thank you.

You mean like us? (2, Interesting)

aliens (90441) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784174)

Ever hear the expression "I'll sleep on it" ?

I've read several times how not thinking about a problem will lend itself to a solution.

ie Go take a walk, get a cup of coffee, take a nap.

Interesting, or maybe I just need coffee.

how convenient! (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784178)

This should make surge protection and UPS MUCH easier.

Oh Great: Ultimate in quantum malware (2, Funny)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784179)

Soon there will be quantum malware that "runs" even if you never try to open it, even if you kill its process, even if you filter it, even if your packets just pass close to it.

For all we know this malware is already running.

Re:Oh Great: Ultimate in quantum malware (4, Funny)

timster (32400) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784351)

Yeah, I can see it now:

"You imbecile! You let that virus infect our systems!"
"But I didn't open the file!"
"Yes, but there was a 2 percent chance that you would have, so two percent of our data was affected... and included in that two percent was your entry in the payroll database. So I'm not firing you, but you won't be paid anymore."
"This sucks! I'm going to commit Schroedinger's Seppuku! You'll regret this when I walk in that door with my guts both spilling out and in my body!"

and... (4, Funny)

jcostantino (585892) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784181)

in unrelated news, my refrigerator light bulb works better with the door closed.

Schrödinger's PC (2, Funny)

ToxikFetus (925966) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784182)

But how do we KNOW it's off?

Answers.. (1)

AnonymousPrick (956548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784184)

FTFA: "It is very bizarre that you know your computer has not run but you also know what the answer is," says team member Onur Hosten.

I wonder if it will give answers to questions not yet asked? [just joking]

Also, it sounds like these computers are still in the stage of "plug and play". Like the early electronic computers, you had to plug in patchcords to program it. This thing needs photons injected into it.

I wonder if there's any CompSci people thinking of the possible compilers that can be written for this thing? I'm thinking that a quantum computer will have the CompScientists throwing out a lot of the current Computer Science theory and developing new ones that fit into the computational capabilities of a quantum computer. I don't know, would deadlocks and such exist with a quantum computer? With all those funky quantum effects, like entanglement, you wouldn't have to worry about deadlocks - or whatever. I think you get me.

Re:Answers.. (1)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784225)

the only "deadlocks" that occur are when you open the box and look at the cat...

Re:Answers.. (1)

AnonymousPrick (956548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784250)

the only "deadlocks" that occur are when you open the box and look at the cat...

Debuggers! You're right! If you try examining your variables, it would change their state. Hmmmm, it sounds like the debugger writers have the real challenge ahead of them! They could call it a "Cat scanner".

Misleading (5, Informative)

karvind (833059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784185)

Running in quantum computers is doing "unitary transformations [wikipedia.org] " and doing measurements on them. So as the article claimed, it is not that you are not doing anything. The only way not to run "it" is by putting it in eigenstate of the system (as well completely isolate it from any external perturbations). If you put it in a mixed state - yes it will evolve with time and then when you do the measurement it will give you "a" eigen state with certain probability. So yes in the end you are still doing measurement which is equally important and consitutes "running" the computer.

Does anyone know what is new here ?

Re:Misleading (1)

Riquez (917372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784412)

it is not that you are not doing anything
So ... err, I am doing everything?

I'm sure Chief O'Brian has a catch phrase for this.

Laziness... (4, Funny)

bwcarty (660606) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784187)

I may appear lazy, but on a quantum level, I'm really quite busy.

So how do we... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784190)

overclock it?

Re:So how do we... (5, Funny)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784241)

So how do we overclock it?

buy more cats

Re:So how do we... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784302)

"So how do we overclock it?"
"buy more cats"

I need a new keyboard now. This old one doesn't work so well now that it's full of coffee...

Yes, but... (1)

xactuary (746078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784196)

how can they tell if it's broken!

What I want (1)

freddie (2935) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784198)

Is a quantum computer kit that I can use to do this stuff.

Here are the instructions for the entrepreneurial inclined:
1. Make quantum computer kit
2. Sell it
3. Profit!

In related news.... (3, Funny)

Lxy (80823) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784200)

Microsoft reported earlier today that Windows performs better with your PC shut off.

Re:In related news.... (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784422)

But it still has security holes.

April Fools? (1)

annunaki2k2 (862300) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784206)

Is it me or is this an April fools joke thats running late? Maybe I should RTFA....

Re:April Fools? (2, Funny)

narratorDan (137402) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784375)

Late? Or perhaps you meant early? Or it could be that this is neither late nor early, but simply in a quantum state of an April Fool's joke that has been measured before all the computations had a chance to stabilize in the computer (running or not).

Narratordan

Black Magic (1)

Bob3141592 (225638) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784207)

I always thought programming was more art than science, and a dark art at that. This proves that at it's best computers are magic. Soon they'll have computers that give their answers even if it hasn't been programmed, or better yet even if it hasn't been built yet. Those answers will be the most accurate of all!

When does stuff like this make people start to lose credibility? Are we there yet? IANAQM, but on a simple gut level I can't buy any of this.

Just wait! (1)

NoseBag (243097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784209)

...The next generation will give correct answers before it's even built.

great... (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784212)

"the computer would sometimes get an answer out of the computer even though the program did not run."

sounds like another answer to a question no one asked.

42 (1)

Rick.C (626083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784216)

So that's why Deep Thought forgot the question! It was turned off for all those millennia while it worked on the answer.

Running or not? (2, Insightful)

papaballoon (946842) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784222)

Maybe we should look at what the definition of running is for a Quantum computer. Once it is assembled is it at that point running? Are applications an add on for functions pertaining to specified data?

Hieronymous machine? (1)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784228)

Am I the only one who read that headline and thought of John W. Campbell's infamous Hieronymous machine? [wikipedia.org] Instead of a circuit board, the machine would have a diagram of a circuit board...and still work.

Naturally, no one has ever been able to reproduce Campbell's results. Campbell was a great science fiction editor, but a real crank when it came to crackpot psuedoscience.

Re:Hieronymous machine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784322)

I think this machine-running-as-a-diagram is now called "a simulator".

The Next Step (3, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784230)

I can just see the next article - "Quantum Software Works Better Without A Computer".

And the followup:

"Quantum Software Works Better Before Writing the Code Than After Writing the Code".

Re:The Next Step (1)

glsunder (241984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784272)

"Quantum Software Works Better Before Writing the Code Than After Writing the Code".

So Quantum == Microsoft?

Re:The Next Step (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784283)

"Quantum Software Works Better Before Writing the Code Than After Writing the Code".

Actually, that's what Microsoft software does. Remember how great WinXP was before anybody seen it?

How do you tell if it's running? (1)

the_tsi (19767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784234)

...If you don't open the box and look inside? I mean, without peeking and knowing for sure, it's in an indeterminate state.

Re:How do you tell if it's running? (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784301)

Makes you wonder how often the line, "No Peeking!" is heard around the labs where they do this sort of research.

Is there an extension to this premise where software can end up being QA'd without actually going through any testing? Now THAT would be exciting.

Good for cats (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784242)

Now you can tell whether the cat is dead regardless of whether the cat is dead or not.

Bloody Stupid Johnson (1)

revery (456516) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784266)

Did Bloody Stupid Johnson [wikipedia.org] have anything to do with this? If so, it sounds an awful lot like he used a few lessons he learned from his work on the Post Office Mail Sorter and the New Pie [wikipedia.org]

Three and a bit. You gotta have it.

Er, need a cup of "really hot tea"? (1)

bjanz (573487) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784267)

It may work, but the answer to every question always ends up being "42". ...ahem...

No, I have no other deep thoughts on this subject...

\burt
(groaning)

The Ultimate IT Solution (1)

kid_oliva (899189) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784285)

I finally have proof that if users turn off their PC's I will have less problems to fix and get more done.

I don't understand this (1)

DigitalBubblebath (708955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784287)


The article was very brief and short on details (maybe I have to read up more on quantum computing).

I kinda get the both running and not-running but how can the results be measured?

Flirting (1)

nahgoe (901302) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784289)

...but allow its quantum nature to flirt with the program's components

I use my computer to flirt all the time.

Though it needs to be on and I don't usually call it flirting.

Blue Screen (1)

Drakin030 (949484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784291)

"A non-running computer produces fewer errors," says Hosten

"Sir im getting a reading"
"Whats it say mark?"
"....Windows has caused an unexpected err......AHH SHIT!!"

umm (1)

bermudatriangleoflov (951747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784293)

Probably equally as possible to not get information when the program is running.

You get Really Right Answers when... (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784297)

...when the OS, Windows QXP, blue screens and then shifts into far infrared, actually delivering the solution prior to loading the data, while also delivering random solutions through out the timeline (document: Leonard of Venice found drawings for a flying aparatus on his table several hundred years ago, courtesy the blue screened Quantum Computator of 2015.)

misleading (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784303)

I read slashdot and the linked article, I think ridiculous things and see voodoo. I read the Nature (very honorable science journal) article, there's no voodoo and everything is straightforward. BTW, I'm a physics graduate student. I wish slashdot and other sites didn't present serious science with such careless descriptions. I give slashdot a F- on this.

Does this mean... (1)

Workshed (838497) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784306)

...they have already run Duke Nukem Forever?

It's a bit early for April Fools Day (1)

pigs,3different1s (949056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784314)

This sounds a lot like it could be an episode of "Aqua Teen Hunger Force". Kind of like the episode where one of the characters was given a "Personal Analog Assistant"; which is a pen and a pad of paper.

Just like my quantum clock! (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784317)

I have a quantum clock on my desk that is shut off, too. It is exactly correct twice a day.

Black Mesa? (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784318)

Anybody wanna bet the reasons behind the Black Mesa incident?

The last of the voice logs from the test chamber read:

"Shutting down. No. Attempted shutdown! It's not... it's not... it's not shutting down!"

Wanna bet why?

NG Silicon Snake Oil (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784339)

It's all smoke and mirrors, well mirrors anyway.

Damn Quantum Scientists (1)

BeBoxer (14448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784348)

I've come to the conclusion that quantum scientists go out of there way to describe everything in confusing and fantastic terms. Obviously this "computer" is running. It's not like they turned it off and came back in the morning and the "answer" had magically appeared. They may think that all the photons are being captured and so none of them ever enter the "computer" itself. But the work is getting done, so something must be traveling through the "computer". If they don't know what that something is, it doesn't mean that it's nothing. It means that they don't know what it is. What they should say is, "we don't have a frickin' clue how it really works" but that doesn't sound as cool.

Depends on what you consider "off" (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784349)

It is still running in a sense (ie. it has power and "stuff" is happening). Just not the typical sense for a quantum computer.

Seems stupid to suggest it's "shut off" because it's not. I would consider "shut off" would mean it has no power flowing to it.

mbod Up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784361)

duty to be a big are a few good more. If you ffel Variations on the guest and never get counterpart, any doubt: FreeBSD Represents the

Works when it's not on ... reminds me of a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784364)

Did you hear about the naturopath who forgot to take his medicine? He died of an overdose.

It also reminds me of a quote from (I think) Arthur C. Clark which was something along the lines of: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I think this is one of those cases where even those who know what's going on don't know what's going on.

Did I time warp? (1)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784365)

I swear my watch says February 22 not April 1!

Bahhhh (1)

orion41us (707362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784372)

A Quantum computer is never really on or really off - it's relatively a little bit off and on at the same time!

"Sometimes"? (1)

Trevin (570491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784404)

That sounds like saying an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters will "sometimes" type out a Shakespearean play. You just don't know when and which one.

SETI (1)

clockmaker (626182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784415)

This would be a great boon for SETI!!!!

OK Quantum computer, riddle me this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14784432)

which came first? the chicken or the egg?

Re:OK Quantum computer, riddle me this... (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784450)

Both.

Thinking for you (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784442)

Now if they can get it to think of your questions for you it'll be perfect.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (1)

endoboy (560088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784458)

improving your error rate by turning the machine off is easy if you're wrong with high enough frequency....

My computer does it too (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784464)

rand() even happen to give me the correct answer before I ask the question !

That Goddamned Cat (1)

aquatone282 (905179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14784467)

Die, damn you!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?