Google and NASA Snap Up D-Wave Quantum Computer

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google and NASA Snap Up D-Wave Quantum Computer

Posted by Unknown on Thursday May 16, 2013 @12:48AM from the at-least-we-think-they-did dept.

ananyo writes "D-Wave, the small company that sells the world's only commercial quantum computer, has just bagged an impressive new customer: a collaboration between Google, NASA and the non-profit Universities Space Research Association. The three organizations have joined forces to install a D-Wave Two, the computer company's latest model, in a facility launched by the collaboration — the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab at NASA's Ames Research Center. The lab will explore areas such as machine learning — useful for functions such as language translation, image searches and voice-command recognition. The Google-led collaboration is only the second customer to buy computer from D-Wave — Lockheed Martin was the first."

108 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 00:51 · Score: 1

I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.
1. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 00:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.
  Objective Quark.
2. Re:What language do you write code in? by Chrisq · 2013-05-16 01:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.
  Objective Quark.
  Or C±±
3. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.
  Objective Quark.
  Or C±±
  Or subjective c
4. Re:What language do you write code in? by Canazza · 2013-05-16 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's NASA, so C* (C star) surely?
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
5. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  Lame...
6. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Python, actually. The quantum part is treated like an oracle.
7. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  I'd be curious what computer language they use to program this thing.
  The only interface that D-Wave provides is function calls in MATLAB.
8. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:03 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That's an MP3 encoder, not a Programming language, and it's not even any kind of wordplay either.
9. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  Machine code; one step lower than assembly and one step above circut design. With a new archetecture you're starting from scratch, and have to write assemblers and assemble the assemblers by hand, then use the assemblers to assemble compilers. Then you can make any language you want and write in that language.
10. Re:What language do you write code in? by wonkey_monkey · 2013-05-16 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  Both at the same time, surely?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
11. Re: What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Python, Matlab, or through a web interface.
12. Re:What language do you write code in? by Esteanil · 2013-05-16 02:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Python.
  http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dev-tutorial-getting-started.html
  
  --
  I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
13. Re:What language do you write code in? by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-05-16 03:02 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  SILENCE, if it was a real Quantum computer then every program is already written in every language known and to be yet invented.
  
  --
  I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
14. Re:What language do you write code in? by spyke252 · 2013-05-16 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Python, actually. The quantum part is treated like an oracle.
  Just when my mod points expire- this is correct.
15. Re:What language do you write code in? by Hentes · 2013-05-16 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't a true quantum computer, it just uses the tunnel effect to minimize functions. So presumably you have to feed some functions to it and it gives back its minimum.
16. Re:What language do you write code in? by bbelt16ag · 2013-05-16 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  then what good is it? whats it better at then conventional systems?
  
  --
  NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
17. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Minimizing functions? You could at least read the fucking comment you're responding to.
18. Re:What language do you write code in? by reve_etrange · 2013-05-16 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed. The object you import is even called BlackBoxSolver.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
19. Re:What language do you write code in? by Pseudonym · 2013-05-16 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  The object you import is even called BlackBoxSolver.
  Informative AND funny.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
20. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  It is, and it's funny. C*, like C#. c-star is the measure of efficiency of a rocket engine.
21. Re:What language do you write code in? by hlavac · 2013-05-16 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  LOL ever heard of cross compilers?
22. Re:What language do you write code in? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-18 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  I thought it was a reference to the C* algebras used in quantum field theories and thus quite aposite, no?
  Or is that too abstruse for slashdot...
Or Not by A10Mechanic · 2013-05-16 00:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Or Not. I can't tell.
1. Re:Or Not by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  *Clapping*
  Give it up for Richard Fuynnyman everyone.
Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 00:52 · Score: 1

I for one welcome our new quantum computer overlords.
1. Re:Welcome by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-05-16 01:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I for one welcome our new quantum computer overlords.
  Don't hold your breath, I predict that there is a world market for maybe five such computers.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Because V&V is sooooo niche...
3. Re:Welcome by weakref · 2013-05-16 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I predict that "640K ought to be enough for anybody".
4. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Don't hold your breath, I predict that there is a world market for maybe five such computers.
  Nah, it's similar to Gate's prediction some 20 years ago that there will always be enough just few kilobytes of RAM. At other end IBM predicted not long ago that quantum computers will be on our desks by end of current decade, and i tend to believe them
5. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Good job! You got the joke!
6. Re:Welcome by SleazyRidr · 2013-05-16 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Wasn't it IBM who predicted a world market for 5 computers back in the day. Looks like they're overcompensating, so on average they're estimates come out pretty close.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
Finally by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 00:56 · Score: 5, Funny

We can solve those traveling salesman problems that have been plaguing our society for hundreds of years!
1. Re:Finally by StripedCow · 2013-05-16 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  Remember, Google is involved here. Finally we can data-mine all the intimate details of all users!
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
2. Re:Finally by spiffmastercow · 2013-05-16 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  We can solve those traveling salesman problems that have been plaguing our society for hundreds of years!
  I realize you're joking, but they actually are important problems to solve. If you have 10,000 solder points, and you need your equipment to solder as fast as possible, what route do you take?
3. Re:Finally by pipedwho · 2013-05-16 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  We can solve those traveling salesman problems that have been plaguing our society for hundreds of years!
  I realize you're joking, but they actually are important problems to solve. If you have 10,000 solder points, and you need your equipment to solder as fast as possible, what route do you take?
  Solving this type of real world problem with a mathematically perfect solution usually isn't necessary. A far simpler and quicker statistical method that produces a solution that is only 99.99% of optimal is generally more than adequate. Same applies to other areas of manufacturing such as quality assurance, in other disciplines such as physical layer communications systems, and even in mathematics such as prime generation.
  It always comes down to how perfect the solution actually needs to be, and how easy it is to get close to or reach that perfect solution.
4. Re:Finally by rocket+rancher · 2013-05-16 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  We can solve those traveling salesman problems that have been plaguing our society for hundreds of years!
  I realize you're joking, but they actually are important problems to solve. If you have 10,000 solder points, and you need your equipment to solder as fast as possible, what route do you take?
  Solving this type of real world problem with a mathematically perfect solution usually isn't necessary. A far simpler and quicker statistical method that produces a solution that is only 99.99% of optimal is generally more than adequate. Same applies to other areas of manufacturing such as quality assurance, in other disciplines such as physical layer communications systems, and even in mathematics such as prime generation.
  It always comes down to how perfect the solution actually needs to be, and how easy it is to get close to or reach that perfect solution.
  In many cases, practicality does trump elegance. But in many other cases, it does not. For a mathematician, some problems -- like the TSP -- are interesting precisely because we don't know (P=NP?) if the only practical approach we have for solving them is inelegant brute force. Factorization of large integers is another one of those interesting problems (you alluded to it as "prime generation.") The existence of an elegant solution to the factorization problem would considerably alter how we conduct secure transactions online, because the security model we use right now depends on the fact that, in the absence of an elegant solution to the factorization problem, it's harder for computers to divide than multiply. So, no, it doesn't always come down to how perfect the solution needs to be; rather, it comes down to how much effort the solution requires. Quantum computers offer the tantalizing prospect that all steps and decisions in a brute force approach to factorization can be collapsed to a single computational step, rendering the existing divide/multiply assymmetry moot.
How does it work? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:00 · Score: 0

How does a quantum computer make a quantum go 0 or 1? Does it make a quantum?
1. Re:How does it work? by riT-k0MA · 2013-05-16 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  The way I understand it is: Strong 1, weak 1, weak 0 and strong 0.
  In normal binary, if 1 was North and 0 was South then quantum would have North, North-East, South and South-East, or something along those lines. I'm not even sure it's even limited to four.
  This may help.
Price? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:02 · Score: 4, Informative

The D-Wave 1 was approximately $10 million:
https://dwave.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/siri/
From a recent Financial Post article profiling D-Wave:
If computers could learn, grow and evolve the same way humans can, the world would be a much better place, Dr. Geordie Rose argues. The co-founder and chief technology officer of Burnaby, B.C.-based quantum computing firm D-Wave Systems Inc. contends that humanity would gain unprecedented access to education, health care and information if only his company’s technology were more widely adopted. Having sold its first quantum computing system to Lockheed Martin Corp. for approximately $10-million, the doctor of theoretical physics spoke to Financial Post technology reporter Jameson Berkow about his plan to change the world. The following is an edited transcription of their conversation.
1. Re:Price? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  If computers could learn, grow and evolve the same way humans can
  ...then they'd be entitled to the same rights as humans, and we'd be even more overpopulated.
  
  humanity would gain unprecedented access to education, health care and information if only his company’s technology were more widely adopted
  Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha what a bunch of bullshit. There's only one thing technology does: set the bar higher in the struggle for survival.
2. Re:Price? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-05-16 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  No so impressed the only articles I can find seem to be either un peer reviewed or if they are the peer appears to have a conflict of interest. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829173.500-commercial-quantum-computer-leaves-pc-in-the-dust.html
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
3. Re:Price? by Time_Ngler · 2013-05-16 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  There's only one thing technology does: set the bar higher in the struggle for survival.
  As well as allow you to reach a wider audience with your crack pot theories, I suppose
4. Re:Price? by viperidaenz · 2013-05-16 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  .... if only his company’s technology were more widely adopted
  If only he'd freely license the patents...
Not a true quantum computer by mblase · 2013-05-16 01:07 · Score: 2

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/loser-dwave-does-not-quantum-compute ...but it does seem to exploit some of the benefits. Who knows, maybe these "hybrid" quantum machines are going to be more practical than "true" quantum computers.
1. Re:Not a true quantum computer by MozeeToby · 2013-05-16 01:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's not a quantum computer, it's a quantum annealer. It can't run general purpose quantum computer algorithms like Shor's Algorithm but it can find the optimum values for a specific class of problems, the same ones that are sometimes solved with software simulations of quantum annealing appropriately enough. The latest research shows that it outperforms a regular computer by several orders of magnitude on those problems, but it remains to be seen if it performs better than an ASIC chip designed for the task.
2. Re:Not a true quantum computer by Rufty · 2013-05-16 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hybrid machines seem to be the way to go, pure quantum computers are cumbersome for such things as addition.
  
  --
  Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
3. Re:Not a true quantum computer by rolfwind · 2013-05-16 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  So basically like a GPU or math co-processor.
4. Re:Not a true quantum computer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Stop the presses. A multimillion dollar device beats a device that costs 100x less. Can they be anymore biased in their benchmarks?
5. Re:Not a true quantum computer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  I read that they compared it by running three different algorithms on a "high end PC". It was 3600 times faster than the fastest algorithm on the PC. Didn't really say if they were comparing it to the highend PC's CPU or its Tri-SLI GPUs though.
6. Re:Not a true quantum computer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  It beat several thousand PCs without using several thousand PCs worth of space or electricity. Assuming you could do the problem on a cluster setup, it favorably compares pricewise to a Top 500 supercomputer.
  So yeah I'm impressed.
7. Re:Not a true quantum computer by RightSaidFred99 · 2013-05-16 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit. Show the proof. All we have so far are vague mentions of this.
Quantum porn! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:10 · Score: 0

On your screen before you even thought of searching for it!
1. Re:Quantum porn! by Chrisq · 2013-05-16 01:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  On your screen before you even thought of searching for it!
  Quantum porn - you can't tell both what position they are in and how fast they are going at the same time
2. Re:Quantum porn! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to walk over to my other computer, just so I can mod you up.
3. Re:Quantum porn! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  Quantum porn - you can't tell both what position they are in and how fast they are going at the same time
  I can't tell if my hands are on my keyboard or not!
Hmmmm by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-05-16 01:10 · Score: 1

Two articles deep:

Instead it does something called ‘annealing’, where an answer is arrived at by looking for the lowest energy state of the bits in the computer chip ...
The D-Wave Two computer, which has 512 quantum bits, is designed to tackle classification-type problems that are useful in machine learning and image recognition. Essentially it is good at determining the best ways to sort things into different categories, such as X-ray scans that contain an image of a bomb and ones that don’t.
This is partitioning using neural network-based pattern recognition techniques.
The annealing is simulating raising the temperature of your variable encoding, which amounts to throwing your solutions around more violently on the gradient descent space in hopes of exiting your local minimum and finding a lower one.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
IEEE Spectrum apologised by Simon321 · 2013-05-16 01:14 · Score: 5, Informative

IEEE Spectrum apologised for that article:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/computing/hardware/big-win-for-the-losers-at-dwave
It's a quantum computer all right, just not a universal quantum computer. But it should still show quantum speedups for discrete optimization problems.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/04/further-proof-for-controversial-quantum-computer.html
So far, tests have been very promising:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829173.500-commercial-quantum-computer-leaves-pc-in-the-dust.html
If it continues to speed up like this, there are some very exciting times ahead of us!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/8054771535/ (Rose's Law, the quantum computer equivalent of Moore's Law)
1. Re:IEEE Spectrum apologised by Vintermann · 2013-05-16 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's a quantum computer all right, just not a universal quantum computer.
  As I understand it, there is a procedure (although an impractical one) to transform any problem into an adiabatic one. So, it's a universal computer, at least.
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
2. Re:IEEE Spectrum apologised by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Wow those links are bad. Are they all just nobodies on arxiv with no peer review or people affiliated with d-wave?
Awesome by Andrio · 2013-05-16 01:18 · Score: 1

"Quantum computer", "Google, NASA", "Artificial Intelligence", "Lab"

Man, there's nothing in this story that doesn't sound awesome.

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except what they obviously intend to use it for - large scale decryption of SSL traffic so the data can be mined by Google (for profit) and the Government (to oppress).
2. Re:Awesome by Kiwikwi · 2013-05-16 02:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except what they obviously intend to use it for - large scale decryption of SSL traffic so the data can be mined by Google (for profit) and the Government (to oppress).
  If that's their intent, they'll be sorely disappointed, since D-Wave's machine has only 512 qubits (where as all new SSL certificates are at least 1024 bits). More importantly, the machine is not a general purpose quantum computer and can't run Shor's algorithm.
  Besides, NSA is already able to break 1024 bit RSA using conventional computing (not to mention the possibility of much cheaper side channel attacks). See e.g. Schneier.
  
  If we are optimistic, it may be possible to factor a 1024-bit RSA modulus [before 2020] by means of an academic effort on [a] limited scale.
  - Kleinjung et al., 2010, my emphasis
  The same paper gives an estimated difficulty of 2 million CPU years for factoring 1024 bit RSA. Sure, that's about $500 million on Amazon EC2, but the NSA have dedicated data centers, dedicated ASICs, smarter algorithms, and money to burn. Realistically, breaking 1024 bit RSA may be as cheap as $50,000 a pop to the NSA... and remember, they only have to break it once per HTTPS certificate, not once per connection.
  (As for Google, they're already have your email and knows every page you visit that contains a YouTube video, a +1 button, or Google Analytics... Why would they waste time breaking RSA when the sidechannel attacks are cheap and plentiful?)
Re: by Simon321 · 2013-05-16 01:22 · Score: 2

Wish i could edit this, it wasn't really an apology, but they are at least in doubt about calling them a loser. Several papers back up the quantum computer claim as you can read in the nature blog post.
Meme splat! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:24 · Score: 0

But can it run Crysis? Will it shove hot grits down my pants? Can they make a Beowulf cluster out of them?
1. Re:Meme splat! by etash · 2013-05-16 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  the 90s called and want their memes back
2. Re:Meme splat! by mblase · 2013-05-16 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  the 90s called and want their memes back
  They what? Did you warn them about 9/11!?
3. Re:Meme splat! by Al3s · 2013-05-16 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  More important: is it good for mining bitcoins?
4. Re:Meme splat! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  Xkcd called, it wants its lame anti-meme back.
Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 01:37 · Score: 1

I've seen many people saying these guys are full of waste byproducts....and yet some mighty big players are buying these suckers. wtf?
Did the quantum computing age begin and (almost) nobody noticed?
1. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Most of D-Wave's cred built over 2 months.
2. Re:Scam? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-05-16 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  and yet some mighty big players are buying these suckers.
  Few people will spend $10M without doing their homework (outside of Congress). Then again, $10M to maintain a competitive advantage over the competition is within many organizations' budgets.
  Did the quantum computing age begin and (almost) nobody noticed?
  TIME Magazine never covered the beginning of anything. But as the Spectrum interview says, they've sold a partnership with these organizations, and that their chips aren't big enough yet to solve their entire problems, yet, but presumably when they get there the early partners will be the market leaders because they started now.
  Curiously absent are the academic institutions - they've certainly spend more than $10M (in inflation adjusted terms, at least) on computers before. To open up an entire new class of computation should justify that level of expense again. The elephant in the room being that most CS departments don't tackle big stuff anymore; they're happy to nibble at the cheap edges.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:55 · Score: 0
  
  There are a very small handful of people qualified to say if this thing is real or not, and so far I haven't seen any of them involved in buying one of these pieces of junk.
4. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  I can see the job description now.
  
  Looking for quantum programmer, must have 10+ years of programming qubits. $50k plus benefits
5. Re:Scam? by X0563511 · 2013-05-16 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  It just recently started picking up steam - but it is doing so absurdly fast.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
6. Re:Scam? by mjwalshe · 2013-05-16 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  10 Mill is not a lot I know on large company that spent £1,000,000 redeveloping an existing system in Oracle because Oracle was corporate standard and because some one was playing politics going for promotion and needed to have run a project of that size to tick the boxes.
7. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. This is what happens when you have technology trade agreements with EBEs in exchange for human flesh (DNA).
  The military industrial complex gets this stuff and plays with it for 50 to 100 years. Then it gets put into mainstream markets through companies like this or simultaneous discoveries across the globe. Things like that.
8. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  TIME Magazine never covered the beginning of anything.
  Well maybe they should get on that.... :)
9. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  A bunch of friends of mine from physics graduate school went into quantum computing, while I went into a different field. So while I'm not completely up to date on quantum computing myself, I did talk to them a bit about this device not too long ago. Of course they would not be involved in buying one, because they are all researching different, more general quantum computers and this device would do nothing for them. They get upset that it is called a quantum computer because it gets confused with what they are working on when there is little overlap. Regardless, it is still seems to be a computer that uses some quantum behavior, and while it is not useful to people researching quantum computers, as typically covered by the news, it still may have its own use. The question seems to be, while it is faster than a general purpose processor for specific algorithms, is it faster than a classical electronics custom chip?
10. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  hmmm...
  Exactly what grade is the aluminum that makes up your hat? I ask because unless it meets certain standards then 'big brother' is freely reading/programming you.
  Just curious...
11. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  wonder when face book will buy 10 of them for instagram
12. Re:Scam? by viperidaenz · 2013-05-16 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Will spending $10M on traditional computers be a better investment though. Can one of these computers perform better than a small datacentre?
In other news android coming to quantum computers by youn · 2013-05-16 01:51 · Score: 1

I can't wait until I play angry birds on there... with birds that are there and not there at the same time. woohoo

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
Why? by slashmydots · 2013-05-16 02:10 · Score: 1

For those of you wondering this, I looked into it. Their current model is slightly slower than current traditional PCs and does absolutely nothing that they can't. So why exactly is anyone buying one of these?
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Only if you define "slightly slower than" to include 3600 times faster. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829173.500-commercial-quantum-computer-leaves-pc-in-the-dust.html
2. Re:Why? by X0563511 · 2013-05-16 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  This is why.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  I think they might be comparing it to CPU performance alone though, making it not really faster than a comparable cluster of "PCs".
4. Re:Why? by Molochi · 2013-05-16 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Found the system specs for the test PCs, I wouldn't call them High End PCs except in the sense that the price was high end. The Xeon X5550 system appears to even be underclocked 1GHz below it's normal speed of 2.66/3.06GHz.
  Still, it'd take a big cluster of them to equal the performance of the V6. That's worth it right there.
  http://www.cs.amherst.edu/ccm/cf14-mcgeoch.pdf
  "All software solver tests were carried out on a suite of
  seven Lenovo ThinkStation S30 0568 workstations, each containing
  one Intel Xeon E5-2609/2.4GHz Quad-Core processor
  with 16GB RAM. The operating system was Ubuntu
  64-bit 12.04 LTS.
  Blackbox runs on a Lenovo d20 workstation containing
  two Intel Xeon X5550@1.6GHz Quad-Core processors with
  16GB RAM. The operating system is Fedora 15. The number
  of hardware samples per main loop iteration was set
  to k = 1000 and the stopping rule was set to 107 function
  evaluations.
  The QA algorithm was run on a hardware chip named
  Vesuvius 5 (V5) that contains 439 working qubits.
  It is a challenging problem to nd precise, accurate, and
  commensurable runtime measurements for these diverse solution
  strategies. We adopted the following conventions.
  All software runtimes are Unix CPU times in units of seconds.
  The Matlab front end started timing immediately
  before solver invocation and stopped immediately upon return:
  thus the tasks carried out by the front end (including
  all I/O) are not included in our time measurements. All software
  tests were run on empty systems (with no competing
  user processes), measuring one solver on one instance, running
  on one core at a time. The Intel hyperthreading option
  (which is known to produce timing anomalies) was turned
  o. In addition to total CPU times, most tests produced
  \history" trace data, by which each solver recorded time and
  solution cost whenever a better solution was found."
  
  --
  "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
5. Re:Why? by viperidaenz · 2013-05-16 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  It costs $10M. It should be compared to a cluster of 100's of GPU's.
6. Re:Why? by viperidaenz · 2013-05-16 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  measuring one solver on one instance, running
  on one core at a time.
  Sounds like they compared their quantum computer with a single core of a Xeon E5-2609/2.4GHz, not all 4 in the test system.
7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  The "faster than all computers" / "faster than the universe" part only applies to real quantum computers that have entangled qubits. It does not hold for the type of "quantum" computers that D-Wave makes.
Google = CISPA Sell-Outs. by crhylove · 2013-05-16 02:16 · Score: 1

Soo.... Now The NSA can get into our quantum computers too. YAY!

--
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
1. Re:Google = CISPA Sell-Outs. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  NASA, not NSA, as in the people who traveled to the moon. Genius.
2. Re:Google = CISPA Sell-Outs. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  I think GP is saying Google -> NSA, not NASA=NSA
3. Re:Google = CISPA Sell-Outs. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  3 letters or 4 letters, it doesn't seem to be a big difference. Except that the 3 letters seem to be better funded....
Q.A.I Lab? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 02:39 · Score: 0

If one of the folks working there is named Brackman, I will proceed to soil myself.
1. Re:Q.A.I Lab? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  The baseball player?
Does anybody know... by spyke252 · 2013-05-16 03:12 · Score: 1

what happened to the Vesuvius?
1. Re:Does anybody know... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  It collapsed under the weight of all the buzzword heavy press releases.
Bitcoin by ultranova · 2013-05-16 05:20 · Score: 2

So why exactly is anyone buying one of these?

For Bitcoin mining. NASA needs to fund itself somehow.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
D-Wave still does not have a quantum computer by Xerxes314 · 2013-05-16 06:33 · Score: 2
Anyone interested in the D-wave story should be reading this article where Scott Aaronson explains the meaning of D-Wave's current results.
The takeaway points are:
1. D-Wave's machine does demonstrate entanglement and quantum annealing
2. There is no speed advantage whatsoever for quantum annealing over classical simulated annealing
3. A correctly optimized version of classical annealing is actually faster than D-wave's solution
4. D-Wave will only be able to make this machine work as a quantum computer (with the attendant speed gains) by implementing error-correction and other improvements that D-Wave have been loudly deriding for their entire history
1. Re:D-Wave still does not have a quantum computer by SoftwareArtist · 2013-05-16 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  According to this article, it actually is much faster than conventional computers... but only for problems that can be mapped to it well, and currently a lot of problems don't fall into that category.
  
  --
  "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
2. Re:D-Wave still does not have a quantum computer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  Please READ the posted article, it explains why the article YOU linked was out-of-date even before it went public.
3. Re:D-Wave still does not have a quantum computer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  To clarify, the Ars Technica article has failed to consider correctly optimized classical annealing codes. Unsurprisingly, for a sufficiently shitty implementation X, implementation Y always offers speedup over X.
  Ob car analogy: Our Yugo is an awesome sports car because it can travel many times faster than other kinds of transportation (where we choose the other kind of transportation to be this mule).
My next computer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 08:06 · Score: 0

Will have a dual core quantum processor.
1. Re:My next computer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-16 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, and it will be 64 Qbits
  Funny my Captcha is crockery
Not a scam, just not a quantum computer by l2718 · 2013-05-16 08:55 · Score: 1

This is definitely not a scam. This company built a device which uses quantum-mechanical effects to quickly solve simulated annealing problems. They get a huge speedup in solving quatum annealing problems — which is what the customers are paying for. The customers understand exactly what they are buying -- no shenanigans here.
However, D-Wave's publicity is rather dishonest. They call their device a "quantum computer" and issue press releases with that term, despite the fact that their device is definitely not a quantum computer in the sense that theoretical computer scientists use the word. It may be that we need to redefine what "quantum computer" means, especially since D-Wave are the only ones with a product on the market that uses quantum mechanics in a computation, but so far this hasn't changed.
Link to D-Wave's blog by quax · 2013-05-16 17:51 · Score: 1

Where the D-Wave CTO and founder Geordie Rose reflects on how his company got to this point.