Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 22

especially with how tepid the results are for the money poured in, it seems much more the case that we are seeing a lot of nakedly cynical playing of the 'give us what we want, lest the chinese win' by people who are otherwise on deeply shaky ground

I'm ok with it as long as I don't have to bail it out if it fails.

Comment Re:Estimates based on conjecture (Score 1) 173

Your assertion that this information is actionable is totally unsupported by any evidence.

Only by any evidence you have seen. Which seems to be none at all, as you so conveniently state. And that is because you have not looked. Really, all you are doing is showing how incapable you are.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 36

What stupid-ass summary is that? What you should not do is predict a technology will be useful "soon" when all the evidence says otherwise. For QCs, if they scale linearly (they likely do much worse), they will be a problem for current encryption around the year 4000 or so. There is nothing wrong with running Physics experiments. But you need to see them as what they are.

Comment Re:quantum mysticism (Score 1) 36

Was it 21? I thought 35. I may be wrong though.

No, they have not. Some people did a larger, fake on a Quantum Annealer (which is not a QC and the computation is unable to scale), but for a real QC is 21 or 35 and that is with a custom algo (i.e. essentially a fake), not Shor's. After 50 years of research. Calling these "computing" is ludicrous. These are Physics experiments, not more.

Slashdot Top Deals

The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.

Working...