Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:ELI5 (Score 1) 87

I know you are joking, but it is worth noting that a) most of the D-Wave skeptics are concerned about articles that portray D-Wave as practical right now or b) Are concerned because they see it as a lot of funding going to what they see as an unlikely to succeed research avenue when it could go to gate-based quantum computer research which is seen by most in the field as more promising.

Comment Re:dust (Score 2) 148

Uhhhh dude? Yeah did you not see where this C64 is? Wanna guess what the main vehicle was before the wall fell in that area of the world? A little hunk of shit known as the Trabant which was a 2 stroke smoke generator.

Remember friend it was an area controlled by Soviet Russia, where soot generates YOU!

Comment Re:ELI5 (Score 3) 87

If a cheap conventional computer works better at the same tasks then it

First these fucks said d-wave wasnt doing any quantum stuff. Then these fucks said it was slower than conventional hardware. Now these fucks say its still slower than conventional hardware if you use a different algorithms that wont solve the same set of problems...

This is not accurate. The first statement is that it wasn't clear that the D-Wave system was engaging in any quantum computation. That's still not clear. Part of the issue here is that it simply isn't completely clear what one means by quantum computation in this context. For example, your laptop's transistors use quantum mechanics in a critical fashion, but they aren't doing quantum computations. The question has always been twofold a) is non-trivial entanglement going on and b) is that entanglement being used to do processing that cannot be easily simulated on a classical system. Those are both strongly connected to questions of efficiency. Right now, the answer to a seems to be yes (although it took forever for the evidence to actually come out).

Your second two sentences are even more wrong. The fact is that it is slower than cheap conventional hardward if one *uses the best known classical algorithms*. That's being used to solve the same problems, as would be clear, if you read the link I gave.

Your insistence that one must use the "the same algorithms" to benchmark is also incredibly wrong in this context, since one cannot use the same algorithms on both at a fundamental level. D-Wave's system uses a variant of an annealing algorithm and cannot run classical algorithms in any meaningful way. In that context, the classical computers are in this sense essentially emulating an annealing process. If you insist that one must use the same algorithms rather than look actual time for solving problems, then the systems are simply incomparable. Actually looking at cost and time to solve problems makes more sense.

As someone else noted.. Google, NASA, etc must be complete idiots for not bowing to the clearly rational flying goalpost these fucks swing around.

Let's recall for a moment that the primary "fuck" you are talking about is Scott Aaronson who is one of the world's most respected quantum computing experts. He's responsible for many major results including the algebraization barrier and the first substantially non-trivial lower bounds on the basic collision problem among other work.

But let's for a moment think about what is going on with Google and NASA and consider other explanations that are relevant here. First, both Google and NASA both have major interests in basic research, and there's a valid basic research interest in what D-Wave is pursuing. (I personally consider it unlikely to go anywhere that useful compared to gate-based quantum computing research but that's a judgment call.) Moreover, large corporations and governments like fads: it doesn't take much for some mid-level manager to decide that quantum computing is a shining new thing and realize that the easiest way to jump on the bandwagon is to buy a D-Wave machine.

Comment Re:ELI5 (Score 4, Interesting) 87

Someone downvoted you, possibly due to a lack of sourcing. So in case anyone is in doubt, they should look at this blog by Scott Aaronson and the discussion. Aaronson is one of the top quantum computing experts on the planet. The comments there are also very relevant. Alex Shelby notes that the algorithms that D-Wave has used to compare on conventional (classical) computers are substantially less efficient than the best classical algorithms. We are going to eventually have actual quantum computers, and when we do they will be awesome. Right now, it isn't clear that D-Wave's system can be reasonably called a quantum computer, and is even more clear that they aren't useful at all.

Comment Re: Comment (Score 1) 314

Depends on whether they use the age reversing tech, see young Arnie in Terminator: Gensys or the young Bridges in Tron:Legacy.

These are some strange times we live in man, we got Elvis on tour with the TCB band via video, you have holograms bringing Ronnie James Dio and Tupac back from the grave, and you can have a 70 year old and his 28 year old self in the same scene interacting. Hell give it a couple more years and I really wouldn't be surprised if they put out a new movie with Marilyn Monroe or James Dean as that seems to be the direction we are headed.

Comment Re:Microsoft Update Catalog is my new hero (Score 1) 221

So you are literally arguing that command prompts are magic? Or are you arguing that you cannot read?

Because you don't HAVE to use the GUI if you do not want to, you can just run the scripts straight from the folder and simply throw away the GUI if you want as all it is doing is simply editing a script called "update" that is in the parent folder right next to the GUI. Throw away the GUI and run the script, which again you can just open in any editor and guess what? It does exactly what the GUI does, installs the updates with the conditional flags you chose. The options you choose? Again all just basic scripts with easy to read descriptors like "install DotNET" "InstallOfficeUpdates" and "MakeLogFile" and anyone who can read even the most basic script can read these quite easily as they are all laid out in classic "if this then that" script language with no attempts at any obfuscation.

So I'm sorry but now you are either just trying to sling FUD or you honestly do not understand how virii work and think computers are magical black boxes that some boogeyman can wave a wand and create a bug. Scripting is something anyone with any kind of IT knowledge or support background is not gonna have any trouble reading, the websites being called to download the updates are the Windows Update site owned by MSFT so unless MSFT gets their own update servers pwned there is no issue there, and once you have downloaded the updates no network or third party programs or even the GUI itself is required as it is simply manually installing Windows Updates from a command line.

Comment Re:How many of those... (Score 3, Insightful) 153

Does this count the huge numbers that took the free upgrade, found they didn't like it (or just wanted to lock in the upgrade) and then went back? Does this count units sold to stores but not through to end users?

This is why I don't buy the numbers put out by companies, there is just too many ways they can manipulate the data to make it look bigger than the actual figures indicate.

Comment Re:Microsoft Update Catalog is my new hero (Score 1) 221

Uhhhh...can you read? Because that is really all you have to be able to do to check WSUS Offline since the GUI is really just a front end for some scripts which are in a folder appropriately labeled "cmd" so you can just open them in the text editor of your choice and see what its doing.

It also doesn't try to obfuscate in ANY way what it is doing or who it is calling if you are using the Offline Generator to generate an Offline Update client (it currently supports Vista-10 including the server variants, VERY handy to have) so when you launch it you get a standard command prompt where you can simply look at the screen and see its just calling the MSFT update servers and downloading the updates straight from the source.

Let me give you my personal assurance, I've been using WSUS Offline for so long I still have the DVD with the WSUS Offline for Windows 2K Pro and not once has there ever been an issue with any kind of spyware, malware, or even Windows Update issues because this doesn't use the WU client and just installs them manually via script. I can't even count how many clients I've used it on, easily in the thousands, and its one of those tools I'll always keep on my network share, its head and shoulders better than dealing with WU.

Comment Re:Microsoft Update Catalog is my new hero (Score 4, Informative) 221

The Convenience Rollup is kept on my keyring USB stick as its just soooo much easier than dealing with a system that may not have had a patch on it in years.

And as far as these new crap "mega updates"? Just turn off Windows Update and use WSUS Offline which last I checked is doing just as you described and grabbing the manual security updates, only you get them nicely bundled with a script that will install them all (and do any reboots required) and shut down the system, hassle free. I highly recommend it.

Comment Re:What a Waste (Score 1, Insightful) 852

How is this any different from Whedon forming a super PAC and using his Hollywood connections to shill for it?

Lets be honest folks, there really isn't an upside this round. On the one hand you have the most corrupt politician this side of Richard Nixon that has promised more wars and to flood this country with refugees ala Germany (didn't work out so great for them, did it?) and on the other hand you have a reality TV star that spends his time tweeting memes...ugh.

Comment Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score 3, Insightful) 527

Compare and Hillary has around 15% of her statements as False or Pants on Fire, while Trump has over half his statements as False or Pants on fire. Facts matter more than you how you feel. Hillary isn't the most honest politician, but compared to Trump she's a paragon.

Comment Re:Serious discussion != credible ideas (Score 1) 289

No. This is confused. You are confusing the classical ideas of an illusionary reality with a situation where we have *actual evidence* that relying on what we understand of the laws of physics, it is highly plausible that our descendants could make simulations. That's a very big and important difference in the sort of argument going on here.

Comment Re:Serious discussion != credible ideas (Score 1) 289

The primary argument for a simulation is novel, it isn't the same as the classical questions because we now do have a line of evidence suggesting that improving computational power will eventually allow detailed simulations. The argument then goes that if this is the case, we should expect that future humans will given the opportunity be likely to on occasion simulate past humans to better understand history. If that's the case, then the probability of anyone who perceives themselves being in the early 21st century is actually simulated is high. There are problems with this argument, but it is not at all the same as classical issues about illusionary realities and the like.

Slashdot Top Deals

Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?