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!

NASA Backs Quantum Computing Claim

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the but-they-did-not-shoot-the-deputy dept.

NASA 138

narramissic writes "Canadian startup D-Wave's demonstration via Web link of a prototype quantum computer in mid-February was met with skepticism in the academic community, but NASA has confirmed that it did, in fact, build a special chip used in the disputed demonstration. According to an article on ITworld, D-Wave designed the quantum chip and then contracted with NASA to build it."

cancel ×

138 comments

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

First Quantum Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295146)

from the fold.

We swear! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295154)

No, there really is a Quantum Computer at the other end of this web link! We'd show you, but its WAY TOO TINY!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295158)

Look at the troll!

How can we trust NASA? (3, Funny)

simdan (207210) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295172)

After all, aren't they the ones that filmed a moon landing in some studio?

Sorry to bring out all the conspiracy nuts, couldn't resist. :-P

Linux sucks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295798)

Linux sucks

Re:Linux sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18297822)

Shut up man! Linux is awesome! I'm going to go put on some penguin underpants.

contracted NASA?? (3, Interesting)

paranoid123 (633401) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295194)

Since when was NASA in the contracting-to-manufacture-computer business? NASA is more of a bureaucracy with a collection of labs all over the nation. They usually hand out the contracts. When they need computers they usually contract IBM or Silicon Graphics (maybe not lately) to do so.

Re:contracted NASA?? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295214)

RTFA

Re:contracted NASA?? (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295222)

How else is NASA supposed to afford diapers?!

Re:contracted NASA?? (0, Redundant)

snarfbot (1036906) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296302)

lol mod parent up please that was a good one

Re:contracted NASA?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18296346)

Offtopic? Whats more ontopic than diapers when talking about nasa

Re:contracted NASA?? (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295300)

NASA developed this chip on their first Apollo mission to the moon. I saw it myself on television as they recorded one of their monitors and they took many pictures to prove it was real.

Re:contracted NASA?? (3, Informative)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295406)

Several government agencies, especially national labs, do lots of civilian work. Often the labs do the basic research, and companies turn it into products at affordable prices.

If you read TFA, it stated that only certain agencies had the equipment to make and run the chips in the first place.

Re:contracted NASA?? (2, Interesting)

TopSpin (753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295788)

NASA leases facilities and performs contract work routinely. This is how they keep valuable people and justify maintaining plant and equipment for which they have no immediate need. The classic case is wind tunnel time; both the facility and the staff can be leased by private parties.

Griffen was recently lobbying Congress [nasa.gov] (see pages 7-8) about this; apparently he would like some red tape cut to permit NASA to do this with certain Shuttle facilities where it currently isn't allowed.

Existence does not imply functionality. (4, Insightful)

Dan Slotman (974474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295204)

The existence of a chip does not imply that said chip actually works.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (3, Funny)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295236)

Or maybe it does work, with the unfortunate side effect of the computers constantly crashing into Mars.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (5, Funny)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295304)

No, it would simultaniously crash into Mars and not.

Go Team Canada!

Scientists Develop First Irish Computer (5, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296326)

Well, you see me boy, they did and they didn't. Or, t'was and 'twasn't, or, to be sure, to be sure, they might've but they mightn't've.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18297854)

That's rude. Canadians are a peaceful people, quiet and contemplative. Deep with lore of bacon husbandry and maple tree whisperering, in tune with the deep vibrations of the Earth.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295296)

The existence of a chip does not imply that said chip actually works.

I don't think 'imply' is the word you want to use here.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (1)

Dan Slotman (974474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295374)

Imply [reference.com] means "To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death." It is what I meant, but please play again!

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295356)

The existence of a chip does not imply that said chip actually works.

But, it's NASA! Come on, they've had enough bad press lately.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (2, Interesting)

Dan Slotman (974474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295412)

I know nothing about quantum computing—I can't comment on whether it is likely that the chip performs. I do think it is likely that NASA delivered a chip that does exactly what the specifications say it is to do. The question is whether the specifications describe a functional quantum chip. If I recall the original article correctly, there were questions about whether the demo computer worked at all, much less scaled to a useful level.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296286)

Why do you hate NASA? /sarcasm

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296776)

Nasa has a fab ???

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (1)

jesdynf (42915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295414)

Maybe not, but I have a hard time imagining that NASA would've cashed the check without enquantifying something first. Be pretty embarassing if they had to give the money /back/.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18296372)

"That doesn't matter, and we were never here."

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296996)

If it's a quantum chip, maybe it exists and doesn't exist.

Re:Existence does not imply functionality. (1)

Mr Abstracto (226219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297264)

Thats the beauty of a quantum chip! You can't observe it working or you effect the results.

Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (5, Informative)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295212)

Does it mean the chip works, and it actually performs quantum calculations? I see nothing in the TFA where NASA confirms or denys the actual function of the chip, just that they made it based on D-Wave's design.

I still don't see any proof that anyone computed anything quantumly. How hard is this to prove, anyways, to all the quantum physicists in the house?

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295330)

Does it mean the chip works, and it actually performs quantum calculations?

It worked in one universe anyway

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (2, Funny)

Xoltri (1052470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295498)

The first rule of quantum computing is don't ask questions.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (4, Funny)

MayonakaHa (562348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295640)

I thought the first rule of quantum computing is you may or may not be talking about quantum computing.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (0, Redundant)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295922)

I thought that the first rule of quantum computing is that you may or may not be talking about quantum computing simultaneously.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (1)

alienmole (15522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296690)

The first rule of quantum computing on Slashdot is that most of the moderators won't know what you're talking about.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18297710)

I simultaneously thought and did not think that the first rule of quantum computing was that I both WAS and WAS NOT talking about quantum computing. No exclusivity about that or!

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (1)

MrNormS (1002849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18298008)

Actually, the first rule of quantum computing is you do not talk about Fight Club. Duh.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (1)

cytg.net (912690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295564)

no, but it does build up to be pretty extensive and expensive scam if that indeed is what it is!

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (1)

ToxicBanjo (905105) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295842)

How hard is this to prove, anyways, to all the quantum physicists in the house?

Very hard, seeing as at anyone time it both does and doesn't work.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (5, Informative)

sco08y (615665) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295958)

How hard is this to prove, anyways, to all the quantum physicists in the house?

IANAQP, but I think it's pretty hard to prove given that you can simulate a quantum computer with a classical computer. (Source. [caltech.edu] )

But, if you have lots of qbits then you can simply argue that it's running too fast to be a simulation:

"Take for example a system of only a few hundred qubits, this exists in a Hilbert space of dimension ~1090 that in simulation would require a classical computer to work with exponentially large matrices (to perform calculations on each individual state, which is also represented as a matrix), meaning it would take an exponentially longer time than even a primitive quantum computer." (ibid)

So I'm thinking that when they get to their 64 or 128 qbit device that we know for certain that it's genuine.

I wonder how long it'll be before Intel and Motorola are selling quantum computers and arguing about the qbit myth?

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297440)

If they solve something that they couldn't have within the lifetime of the universe with a classical computer, it doesn't matter, because we can't verify that their solution was correct without a quantum computer of our own.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (3, Informative)

tftp (111690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297686)

If they can routinely discover RSA secret keys then you probably don't need a quantum computer to verify that. An Intel 386 box would be enough.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (2, Insightful)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18298334)

Read this. [wikipedia.org]

Rough summary: There are many problems for which a purported solution can be checked quickly, but which are thought to take a long time to solve with classical computers.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (4, Interesting)

tbo (35008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296076)

Disclaimer: IAAPRQC (I Am A Physicist Researching Quantum Computing).

I have no doubt their chip actually exists. That's not what people are skeptical of. There are more fundamental questions, a few of which I'll list below, along with my guesses as to the answers:

1) Does their chip demonstrate global coherence?
Maybe.

2) If yes to (1), can they maintain that when scaling up to larger numbers of qubits?
Almost certainly not with anything like their present design, unless they move to implement quantum error correction and the massive amounts of overhead that entails.

3) If no to either (1) or (2), can they implement a practical algorithm that gives at least a sqrt(N) speed-up over classical computers without global coherence?
Possible, but would be surprising if true. This is probably the main thing the academic community is skeptical about--we want to see some peer-reviewed research from D-Wave on this.

4) Why is all the press coverage so horribly wrong and misinformative?
Because it's more fun to make jokes and stupid statements about quantum mechanics than it is to actually write a clear and well-researched article. Also, talking to an actual physicist is far too scary for your typical J-school grad.

See this post [scottaaronson.com] on Scott Aaronson's blog for a much more informative and detailed analysis of D-Wave's claims.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296294)

Thank you. Maybe.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (2, Interesting)

rmckeethen (130580) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297074)

Also, talking to an actual physicist is far too scary for your typical J-school grad.

As it happens, I am a J-school graduate, and I work with a real-life physicist. We talk almost every day, and I don't find him scary at all. Granted, we don't talk about quantum physics on a daily basis, but we do talk about other highly-technical subjects. Still, perhaps I'm just not your typical J-school student -- my very first published story was on extra-solar planet detection, a subject I find fascinating.

During my time in school, I met a number of science writers who appeared to know their subject very well. In my own experience, it was most often my editors who were responsible for sensationalizing and distorting the science stories I wrote. Hell, before I left school, I was thankful simply to have an editor who could add two numbers together reliably, much less comprehend the mysteries of leading-edge science. Sadly, while reporters may spend weeks researching a story, their editors don't usually have that luxury, and they're working under a whole different set of guidelines. Typically, once I turned in my copy, my editors pretty much did whatever they wanted with it, with results that were sometimes strange, sometimes funny and sometimes completely maddening.

The moral of this story, as you may have guessed, is that not everyone in the media is as ignorant as you may think on science and technology issues. Science is hard work -- is it really surprising that interpreting scientific research, and translating results into layman's terms, is in some ways almost as hard? In any case, thanks for the summary. If more people in your profession could write in such concise and eloquent terms, I think the public would be much better informed.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (3, Interesting)

tbo (35008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297524)

It's good to hear that there are at least some journalists with an interest and an aptitude for science. I think the entire quantum computing academic community has been a bit bummed out about the quality of media coverage lately. Scott Aaronson's blog [scottaaronson.com] has a number of posts discussing this issue, including a letter that he wrote to The Economist about its particularly bad D-Wave coverage. There is also some good news--Scott got asked by Scientific American to write a summary of Shor's algorithm--but mostly reading press coverage of our field is just maddening.

Science is hard work -- is it really surprising that interpreting scientific research, and translating results into layman's terms, is in some ways almost as hard?

No, it's certainly not surprising. I get a reminder of how hard it is to explain this stuff every time I try to tell someone what I do and their eyes glaze over. I don't claim to be good at explaining it, whereas science journalists seem to be quite good at making stuff entertaining and bringing it down to a layman's level. The problem is the completely uncritical coverage of miraculous claims, and the glaring technical errors that horribly distort the science. Is it common for journalists/editors to run a draft of their article past an actual scientist in the field? If not, why doesn't this happen? Pride? Deadlines? Journalism guidelines?

After being burned on a previous interview, I'd now be very reluctant to give an interview about my work without the reporter agreeing to run a draft past me for me to check for technical accuracy. Do science journalists honor that kind of request? If not, can you give me a journalist's perspective on what I can do to ensure the resulting article is accurate? I ask because I've got a paper coming out soon that might attract a bit of media interest.

Re:Does that NASA built a chip mean anything? (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18299940)

The problem is the completely uncritical coverage of miraculous claims, and the glaring technical errors that horribly distort the science. Is it common for journalists/editors to run a draft of their article past an actual scientist in the field? If not, why doesn't this happen? Pride? Deadlines? Journalism guidelines?
Because there are no repercussions for being wrong. The only people who care are the small number of scientists who know the difference. Your average casual science reader mentions a "breakthrough" to his wife over his Sunday morning bacon and toast who replies "What will they think of next?" Science reporting is essentially for shits and giggles, since most experts get their "news" through conference talks, mailing lists, or peer-reviewed journals. Science reporting is good filler and it sells papers.

Contrast this with political reporting, where printing false or misleading statements can, at the very least, put you in trouble with your paper's management, and at the worst can put you in front of a grand jury. Note that journalists are much more careful with their facts in this case.

BS (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295242)

Here's is where my Bullshit-O-Meter went a bling-bling. When D-Wave hyped the exhibition of their quantum chip then showed up without it. Oops, we forgot it. What other revolutionary tech are you showing here? None? Then how the hell did you forget your only reason for coming here? What the fuck! I bet idiots like you couldn't even figure out the stupid "rubber pencil" trick. Maybe you and Infinium Labs can get together and build the next gen Phantom. Your slogan could be "Now with quantum technology" while it should really be "Now almost actually being produced."

Re:BS (1)

HardCase (14757) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295618)

What? A trick?

Re:BS (1)

llamaxing (895844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295904)

You can't make fun of these people for forgetting their chip. How many times have you done something similar -- ie, you walked to your car but forgot to grab your keys?

Re:BS (2, Funny)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296074)

Duke Nukem Forever will almost run on their architecture.

Re:BS (3, Funny)

bryxal (933863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296970)

The corect phrase would of been: Duke Nukem Forever will simultaneously Run and Not Run on their architecture.

Re:BS (1)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297350)

Speaking of Daikatana, if I run it on this new fangled contraption will it both suck and blow at the same time?

Swi

ISR! (1, Funny)

RileyLewis (826273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295246)

In Soviet Russia, computer chip designs space administration!

FrisT 4sot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295520)

BSD fa8atics? I']ve

So what (1)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295556)

This is irrelevant. DWave claimed to have the first commercial quantum computer. And then the details are its only a few bits (nothing new), can't come close to matching the performance of a classical computer (obvious), and then a complete absence of any indicators that the design will scale other than "we plan to have 1000 bits in a year".

What they claimed is trivial, the problem academics have is that they claimed it wasn't and that it will scale.

So D-Wave managed to con a... (0, Flamebait)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295566)

...government agency into complicity in their scam. How is this news? I've seen firsthand how easy it is to get miilions of dollars out of government agencies for cockamamy schemes.

Not insightfull, Ignorant. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296140)

NASA has equipement no one else has.
They have the best people at MDL.
NASA takes money from companies to produce chips no one else can.

This, is a good thing.

"I've seen firsthand how easy it is to get miilions of dollars out of government agencies for cockamamy schemes."

Doubtfull at best.

Re:Not insightfull, Ignorant. (2, Interesting)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296654)

"I've seen firsthand how easy it is to get miilions of dollars out of government agencies for cockamamy schemes."
The CEO of my second last employer set up a fake company into which was sunk 3 or 4 million dollars of grants from the city. They had no employees but used the reputations of people who had previously worked for this guy. For example, in one press release they quoted me as if I worked for him (because I have a good reputation in the niche I work in). They were just this empty shell that the city trumpeted as this amazing new company all over the newspapers. Eventually really caught up with them, but not before the ex-CEO was off working his next scam. All of this guy's ex-employees knew it was a scam, and one friend informed the local newspaper, but the city turned a blind eye. Now there are all these news stories about how sad it was that it didn't work out, as if it wasn't a scam in the first place. All you had to do was a web search to find out about this guy's previous companies.

So I have no doubt that if you schmooze with the right people it's trivial to redirect millions of dollars into your pocket.

Re:So D-Wave managed to con a... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296374)

Perhaps you missed the part where they paid NASA to do this. That's not how a scam usually works.

Re:So D-Wave managed to con a... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18296910)

People are often paid to go along with perpetuating scams. What is your point?

to all the doubters... the chip works! (4, Funny)

N3wsByt3 (758224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295594)

I'm a tenured professor in quantumcomputing and I can assure you the chip works! This is based on a paper I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility.

O, wait...

This was meant to be posted here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/145221 9 [slashdot.org]

Sorry, my mistake!

Re:to all the doubters... the chip works! (1)

codell (714441) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295654)

It's a trap! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Big Deal? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18295596)

I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. So there's a computer capable of making really really really small calculations. I need a computer to make BIG calculations for me. Don't sweat the small stuff, I say.

First... (3, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295776)

First they ignore you, then laugh at you, then attack you, then you win.

The bad part is that fakes share the same fate, except the last bit.

Re:First... (1)

scribblej (195445) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295908)

In the same vein...

"They laughed at Galileo! They laughed at the Wright Brothers!"

Yup.

They also laughed at Bozo The Clown.

Re:First... (2, Interesting)

zCyl (14362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295914)

The bad part is that fakes share the same fate, except the last bit.

Isn't that more like:

1. They ignore you.
2. They laugh at you.
3. They attack you.
4. ...
5. Profit.
6. Move to a small island.

More eye-rolling than laughing, really (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296038)

From what I've seen, the people in the know haven't ignored, laughed, or attacked. They've simply responded with their normal skepticism. Solving Sudoku and throwing around buzzwords like NP-complete is a great way to impress the media and all, but they're waiting for solid proof. They could also improve their case by asking their marketing team to shut up for a while and giving their engineers a chance to say something coherent about the invention.

Quickly producing the prime factors of large arbitrary numbers would probably do much to reduce the level of skepticism - not as much as publishing what they did so someone else can try to reproduce their results, but I doubt they're going to be divulging a trade secret like that anytime soon.

Re:More eye-rolling than laughing, really (1)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297632)

Quickly producing the prime factors of large arbitrary numbers would probably do much to reduce the level of skepticism
Nah, that would only attract unwanted nightly visits from some nice folks that happen to work at CIA and NSA.

It's real! (2, Funny)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295938)

I know it's real. I've actually seen it in action. An unfortunate side-effect is that my cat suddenly died... and didn't.

Not this again... (2, Insightful)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 7 years ago | (#18295980)

NASA doesn't necessarily "back quantum computing claim" of D-Link. They just confirmed they made a chip for them. Didn't we already find out a month or so ago that, according to their own admission, it's not a true quantum computer, but it MAY use some quantum principles in its design? As far as I care, even that claim hasn't been verified.

D-Link? (3, Funny)

SethHoyt (1024709) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296116)

I didn't realize it took quantum computing to power my wireless router...

Re:Not this again... (1)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296252)

Well of course, it both is and isn't a quantum computer at the same time.

D Wave (1, Funny)

lelitsch (31136) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296002)

This D-Wave quantum computer seems to be neither here not there.

"backed the claim" (3, Insightful)

MaggieL (10193) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296022)

Insofar as I can tell, JPL has backed the claim that they made the chip; nothing further.

Re:"backed the claim" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18297094)

I know Kleinsasser and his work (professionally) - he is a very solid guy. While he only says he made the chip, I don't think he would waste his time on complete BS. Then again, JPLs budget is not what is once was.

Re:mod do3n (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296640)

Straight up copy and paste from modern e-mail spam. I do like the modern spam filter training effort ... most entertaining.

Not good for security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18296134)

"1,024 qubits by the end of 2008."

You could run Shor's algorithm on most (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm

Re:Not good for security (1)

jacks0n (112153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296976)

Maybe it worked really, really well.

Then some guys in black suits came around and hushed the whole thing up, and a little later a weakly godlike intelligence woke up down in the depths of the puzzle palace.

Infocalypse or Singularity? Fire or Ice?

Either way, what is certain is that the end is near, and it is definitly time to panic.

Hehe (1)

nnn0 (794348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296578)

NSA has had this for years ;)

Huh (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18296712)

See the thing is a real quantum chip will have already been working for some randomish while.

you insensiti7ee clod! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18297188)

Is part o7 the

its about time! (4, Funny)

stim216 (881386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297192)

Finally! A computer that can run vista!

Welcome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18297360)

I, for one, welcome our new Canadian Quantum Cryptography Cracking Overlords.

Quantum CPU Music Video! (1)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297362)

Seeing as NASA has confirmed this CHIP is real, I think it's time for Weird Al Yankovic to come up with a sequel to his 1999 killer music video titled "It's all about the Pentiums Baby!"

The hilarious video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vaNeaWQoHI [youtube.com]

Some video sequel suggestions for Mr. Yankovic:
1) New title might be "It's all about the Qubits, baby!"
2) Any references to Y2K should be updated to reference DST in 2007 & UNIX date issues in 2038
3) The T1 at his house needs to be upgraded to quad OC768 SONET fiber rings hosting Torrent servers and at least 1/3rd of Youtube.
4) References to newbies might include "Trying to upgrade to Vista on a single core CPU, 256 MB of RAM & single square 15" monitor"
5) Video dance moves should be upgraded to Popping moves (search "popping" on Youtube).
6) Floppy disks in video & references to storing "your entire hard drive data" should be upgraded to USB sticks.
7) Babes in video need less clothing (less is more right?)
8) Chorus update: "What'chu wanna do? Wanna be torrent leechers, MySpace peepers? Wasting time with all the Google seekers? 9-5 chillin' with all the Vonage Phreakers? Working at a cubicle, with some lame little speakers? Yeah payin' the bills with my mad zero-down mortgaging skills!... etc"
9) & 10) you fill in the blanks.

Adeptus

Privateered NASA (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297408)

I'm pissed that my lifetime financing NASA, which is usually the government expense of which I'm most proud, is subsidizing some foreign corporation's R&D pulling it ahead of American business. America isn't necessarily any better or more deserving of first place, but it's my country, the one I'm paying for, the one I'm living in, the one NASA exists to serve. I'm perfectly happy with all the returns from NASA's American research investments into the world's benefit. But directing NASA's limited operations to benefit a single corporation, a foreign one, is unacceptable.

Funny how this happens after Bush puts a Star Wars scientist in charge of NASA. I guess when your entire career is spent ripping off NASA's space research for a bogus military contract, you don't even notice when you sell out the rest of NASA on your watch.

Re:Privateered NASA (1)

eplawless (1003102) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297516)

"Can we pay you to manufacture this?" "Yes." Bastards sold out. Apparently the correct answer was: "No, foreign devils."

Re:Privateered NASA (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18297596)

If the answer was "you can pay the extremely high cost without the subsidies Americans paid to produce this unique fab", then that might be OK. But they didn't. They're not "devils", they're just foreigners who aren't paying the full cost of that fab, and are outside the mission that Americans are paying NASA for.

Do you have any other gibberish justifications for me to subsidize foreigners to compete with the industry in my own country? What country are you paying taxes in?

Re:Privateered NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18298664)

If they are going to pay for the cost of the factory also, why would they need NASA in the first place? They'd simply build their own, right? Oh noes! Foreigners are paying US to manufacture some high-tech stuff! Take your factory and shove it up man.

Re:Privateered NASA (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18298718)

Because NASA already has the factory and the people with the expertise. It's not just that the US is rich, it's that we've had the foresight to spend it on the right things. Taking the risk with our money and our national effort that foreign countries don't even bother to take.

That's an American advantage, which I want us to use for Americans.

So fuck you, fucking Anonymous thief Coward. You're probably a foreigner, given your demands to cherry pick my country's success without taking the risks or paying the costs yourself. It's not being foreign that matters - it's being a foreign ripoff. Fuck you and your delusions of entitlement to my national tech investment. Get your own scientific socialism, and then you turn it into a global grab bag. Looter pussy.

Re:Privateered NASA (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18298846)

Apparently you didn't have the foresight to predict that this would happen. Surely you would have some sort of law against this if you did. Ultimately, what you're complaining about is your own doing.

If you flaunt your successes, you should live up to your failures.

There are no delusions of entitlement to anything here. It's business working as business does. Don't like it? Tough luck. Should have had more foresight.

Re:Privateered NASA (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18299916)

What the hell are you talking about? The political problems that allow NASA to work against American interest is OK, because our tech foresight is more reliable than the integrity of our political process?

The people posting that this is OK, that my criticism is somehow merely xenophobia, are those undeniably deluded into entitlement.

So I dismiss your fatalism. Where do you live and pay your taxes?

Re:Privateered NASA (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18299722)

It doesn't matter if the benefactor is public or private, foreign or domestic; just so long as they line the right political pockets.
That's the American way my friend. After all any republican will tell you that any business move is ethical so long as it isn't illegal or the business is willing to pay the cost of its actions.

Re:Privateered NASA (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18299904)

Another part of the American way is to stand against those abuses. To publicly denounce them. To demand accountability. America's is the interactive citizen/government model. Your post is part of it, but would be more effective if pointing out how to fix it despite its propensity for breaking.

The article sucks (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18298368)

Both this article and D-wave's PR speak sucks:

"You could characterize our announcement as being met with enthusiasm from industry and skepticism from academia," D-Wave CEO Ed Martin said in an interview Feb. 27. But he said the event served as proof of concept of the technology, and that D-Wave's potential customers are businesses that don't care how the technology works as long as it can solve their complex models. He plans to start renting time on the machine to customers in 2008

Bullshit. Academics aren't just skeptical because they care how the technology works. They're also skeptical because D-wave hasn't proved that their QC design can scale to a larger number of qubits. And that's something that "D-wave's potential customers" do care about, since a QC with 16-qubits can't do anything which classical computers can't solve quickly... A typical PR reality-distortion demonstration...

 

Martin said the back end is a rack-mounted PC with an off-the-shelf processor, but wouldn't cite the specific brand

Who cares about the PC's brand?? Any modern (and even some not-so-modern) PC would even have the capability to simulate 16-qubits if they wanted to fake the demonstration...

A standard digital processor assigns a specific value to each data bit, and handles them one at a time.

I guess they never heard of pipelining...

All crypto is now broken!! (1)

tkjtkj (577219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18299926)

The implications are staggering ... and of course include the fact that ALL encryption schemes are now broken!

This is sO staggering an issue that it just has to be the case that secret projects are involved in the effort. The article states that this company alone has been working on this for 10 years ...

Could it be that their step-wise fashion of 'progress' in their efforts are nothing more than actions taken to give time for the financial community, eg, to find ways to handle the matter, not to say governments?

When we remember that a quantum computer 'forcefully attacks' an encryption scheme by trying all possibilities at once (eg reducing a 10-million year key attack' to 10 minutes, we begin to see the enormity of the matter.

"Just because the 'nuts' out there make fools of themselves does not mean they are wrong" -tkjtkj , {Registered Copywrite)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>