Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Who Needs an Article to Tell Me This? (Score 1) 140

Frankly, I think net neutrality will win out in the marketplace because of the things some companies, e.g., Google, are doing to let their users know that the ISP's are throttling them.

I'm not so concerned for Google or Netflix as I am concerned about startups who would otherwise be able to compete with the content provided by ISPs. What would've happened had Verizon and Comcast slowed down traffic to Netflix when it was first created? What about if it were possible when Facebook, or Google, were born?

I think it sets a dangerous precedent when one or two companies literally get to decide what new services are good ideas and then create their own, shitty version of it that competes only on the basis of not being fucked with by the ISP.

The ISP's can't prevent them from doing this and ISP's customers can choose another ISP that doesn't do it, or at least offers better performance.

When 37% of Americans have only two wired broadband providers, 28% have just one, and 2% have no wired broadband ISPs at all, I don't think this is really as much an option.

Comment: Wow. (Score 2) 186

by spyke252 (#45594829) Attached to: A Link Between Wormholes and Quantum Entanglement

The insight could help physicists reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity

What? QM is COMPLETELY in line with relativity. If you had FTL communication, it wouldn't, but that doesn't exist- quantum teleportation requires a classical channel to relay information (namely, which state Bob's particle collapsed into). I admit I haven't read the linked articles yet, but I doubt the authors made any such claim (and that was input by the submitter/editor)

Source: I am a PhD student in Quantum Computer Science.

Comment: Re:quantum computing (Score 5, Informative) 96

by spyke252 (#44067137) Attached to: A Look At Quantum Computer Manufacturer D-Wave and Its Founder

The research into quantum computing is using done with the goal of a universal quantum Turing machine, which would, by proof, run classical algorithms in addition to quantum ones.

Not the D-Wave. There's two branches in current quantum computation: General quantum computation, which is still stuck at the implementation stage (of which languages like QCL derive) and D-Wave's computation (which, admittedly, is geared toward quantum annealing and no other quantum procedures, and is therefore not a general quantum computer).

If I were to think a few years down the road, the path D-Wave is taking would culminate in chips that do specific things, such as perform quantum communication protocols, but only those things that were hardwired into the chip. It's hard to think of how a quantum operating system or a quantum programming language would operate under such a model. The general quantum computing path, for which four major quantum programming languages have been written already (QCL, LANQ, CQPL, and QML), if possible, would allow for Turing-Complete machines.

It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.