Comment Re:A new low for Slashdot (Score 1) 493
Yes, apparently anything goes for clicks these days.
Yes, apparently anything goes for clicks these days.
"These people will gleefully sail us into the abyss, blaming everyone else all the way down."
Well said
What's empty is your straw-man argument. Of course most academics do excellent work.
What the original poster claimed was academics in the QC hardware business dismissing D-Wave. The most outspoken critic is a theorists. Is it too much to ask to get a link to a more hardware oriented academic going on the record with regards to D-Wave?
MIT included them in the list of the fifty smartest companies, so we know there are plenty of academics who think highly of D-Wave.
Have been blogging about them for a while and visited them on site.
Full Disclosure: One of their board members paid a beer for me.
It's because of dudes like you that I am cross with Scott A. He has every right to be critical but his rhetoric is so over the top that he created a kind of parallel universe, that doesn't even allow for this kind of adiabatic quantum computation to be tried and tested.
" In THEORY you can delete bits, but in practice you actually can't
If I give you a bunch of RAM SIMs there's no way you can tell me what was written on them.
At any rate, fully reversible computing means the ability to completely reverse arbitrarily complex algos, being able to reconstruct a couple of previous bit states isn't cutting it.
And yes, you actually can delete bits, the entropy heat signature this produces is theoretically well understood, and Landauer's principle has recently been experimentally confirmed.
While he makes some good points he is unfortunately completely missing the point with this statement:
" In THEORY you can delete bits, but in practice you actually can't
Mighty big roar for an AC.
"D-wave is bullshit."
Tell us how you really feel.
A simple way to simulate this to some extend would be to just add some random noise in form of qubit flips.
But with just 20 qubits you unfortunately can't push this very far.
Should have included this in the previous comment, but couldn't find the link at first.
What I did use occasionally when taking the course was this little browser based gem. While certainly not nearly as powerful as this Google simulator it was still quite useful.
Show me yours, I showed you mine
... when I took the EdX's CS191x Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computation course.
This is actually a requirement for such a simulator as all unitary QM transformations are reversible.
It's kind of ironic that Google released this project given that they are at the same time heavily betting on D-Wave with a radically different approach to QM than the Gate based model.
The D-Wave founder Geordie Rose is know for disparaging the Quantum Gate based model as completely impractical, and in turn other QC researchers have been very critical of his approach to the matter. Spawning a contentious controversy almost as old as the Canadian start-up itself.
Duh, do I actually have to include 'per capita' when making comparison between the US and Canada?
C'mon.
Don't think they are required to pay if somebody gets hold of your gun because you didn't safeguard it properly and then goes on a rampage, or if you shoot somebody while cleaning you gun.
That's the kind of damage I would like to see covered.
"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell