Intel Unveils 'Breakthrough' 49 Qubit Quantum Computer (extremetech.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Unveils 'Breakthrough' 49 Qubit Quantum Computer (extremetech.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Saturday January 13, 2018 @07:54AM from the next-generation-hardware dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader cold fjord writes: Extremetech reports, "At CES 2018 this week, Intel's CEO Brian Krzanich declared the company's new 49-qubit quantum computer represented a step towards "quantum supremacy." A 49 qubit system is a major advance for Intel, which just demonstrated a 17-qubit system two months ago. Intel's working with the Netherlands-based Qutech on this project, and expanding the number of qubits is key to creating quantum computers that can deliver real-world results... "Qubits are tremendously fragile," Intel wrote in October. "Any noise or unintended observation of them can cause data loss. This fragility requires them to operate at about 20 millikelvin -- 250 times colder than deep space." This is also why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point."
Krzanich also thanked the industry for "coming together" to address the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities. "The collaboration among so many companies to address this industry-wide issue across several different processor architectures has been truly remarkable."

204 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 07:57 · Score: 3, Funny

The tipping point for quantum computers is around 30 qubits. This opens up research on breaking traditional encryption, AI, autonomous driving and blockchain. Very exciting.
1. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  I think you mean horrifying.
2. Re:Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  AI is inevitable, just like Moore's Law.
3. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  "...This is also why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point."
  This reminds me of some predictions made by IBM and Microsoft CEOs.
4. Re: Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Because computers advanced tremendously in the early days, this will too. It is inevitable. You just have to wait.
5. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  AI is not well defined, just like Moore's law. Hence you can just change the definition depending on how things change in the future and pretend that you were always a genius.
6. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  ^^ Sarcasm ^^
7. Re: Huge breakthrough by michelcolman · 2018-01-13 09:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I think there's a world market for maybe five quantum computers...
8. Re:Huge breakthrough by ceoyoyo · 2018-01-13 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  Possibly 30 fully error corrected and connected quibits would be interesting. On the other hand, IIRC there are already simulators that can do that many reasonably.
  It's unlikely that these quibits are fully connected or error corrected.
9. Re:Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  No, this means that AI Is right around the corner now.
10. Re:Huge breakthrough by Aighearach · 2018-01-13 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  If by "AI" you mean the field within Computer Science, that has existed since before you were born.
  If you mean some sci-fi nonsense, then no.
11. Re:Huge breakthrough by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-13 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  The tipping point for quantum computers is around 30 qubits
  [Citation needed]
  Some chap from IBM told me you need lots of bits for Shor's algorithm - at least the length of the key and quite possible several times more for quantum error correction.
  Looking at Slashdot's Let's Encrypt certificate it has an RSA key size of 2048 bits. So you need 2048*n
  E.g. if you did need to have 2x as many bits for error correction n is 2. Of course it might be you don't need error correction and some clever algorithm might let you crack the 2048 bits in two runs of 1024 bits each. In which case n is 0.5.
  Mind you the conversation went like this (we met at an IBM stall at an exhibition where they had a few qubit devices on show)
  Me : So have you managed to crack RSA with Shor's algorithm
  Him : [Long explanation of the need for quantum error correction and why n greater than one and probably much greater than one].
  I still suspected that n is less than or equal to one and they've done it but they're not allowed to tell people.
  E.g. if you'd talked to someone from Bletchley Park they'd explain why Enigma would take much more time to crack than a naive layman's estimation even though they'd know it was actually easier because of automation and cryptographic advances.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
12. Re:Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. Things like Neural Nets, which have been around since the 70s, which work just like how the brain works. That is why they call them "neural networks" and that is why we have things like Siri now, which are just like humans. And now we have "deep learning" which takes it even deeper.
13. Re: Huge breakthrough by tsa · 2018-01-13 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  I thought a quantum computer can do all calculations simultaneously? Surely one is enough!
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
14. Re: Huge breakthrough by toonces33 · 2018-01-13 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know what kind of equipment is required to reach 20 millikelvin? Because I do.
  For the work I did years ago, I only went to 1.8K, going further most likely means a dilution refrigerator, all in a cryostat with assorted vacuum pumps and a supply of instrumentation and cryogenic fluids. I haven't priced any of this stuff in many years, but even back in the day none of that stuff was cheap.
15. Re:Huge breakthrough by tsa · 2018-01-13 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Never in my life have I met a human who is as dim as Siri is.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
16. Re:Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-13 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  The tipping point for quantum computers is around 30 qubits.
  It's going to take about 1,048 qubits to break encryption efficiently enough to destroy things like Bitcoin. Not a lot considering quantum computer qubit densities are increasing at about the same rate as Moore's law - Bitcoin has about 5-8 years before it becomes worthless.
17. Re: Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  You just aren't thinking. They will be used in space factories, which will be building interplanetary spaceships. It is plenty cold up there.
18. Re:Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Clearly you have never met me.
19. Re: Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-13 09:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You only need superconducting temperatures for qubits. A few years ago there was actually a design for room-temperature qubit handling hardware, but all the engineers involved in the patent rights mysteriously vanished (**cough** MH370 **cough**.) Interesting, the Rotheschilds were the only other patent holder - so they hold the rights to room temperature quantum computing now.
20. Re:Huge breakthrough by tsa · 2018-01-13 09:37 · Score: 2
  
  You're way smarter than Siri. You understood the sentence I wrote.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
21. Re:Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well since Intel went from 17 to 49 qbits in TWO MONTHS then 1,048 will be available by the end of the year. Just like Moore's Law.
22. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  This is colder than space and cooling can be a bit of an issue in space. Heat doesn't radiate away very quickly with no medium around to carry it away.
23. Re:Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Let me look that up for you.
24. Re:Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-13 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  DLink already had around 20, Intel is just getting into it.
25. Re: Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  We can use asteroid dust and spin the computer. I'm sure it will be fine.
26. Re: Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, those Rotheschilds want to keep quantum computing from us because they know it will be used to break the encryption on the files that prove they really run the world. With the aliens. And the Rothschilds.
27. Re:Huge breakthrough by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 10:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That explains why I am so uncertain if my wifi is going to work or not...
28. Re:Huge breakthrough by CaptainDork · 2018-01-13 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  AI is impossible, just like "Gorilla's Law."
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
29. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  ðY
30. Re: Huge breakthrough by CaptainDork · 2018-01-13 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Quantum computers can compute one number or another number but not both numbers because those numbers don't exist unless the cat is alive or dead.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
31. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  Artificial neural networks do not behave like the brain does. They are bio-inspired architectures, not architectures that faithfully mimic underlying biological processes. There is a BIG difference between the two.
32. Re: Huge breakthrough by Dutchmaan · 2018-01-13 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Traditional computers made their debut in the 1940's.. I believe the first real widely adopted home PC's started popping up in the early 80's.
  40 years from room sized computers to the desktop is quite reasonable. I would assume that quantum computers would likely follow the same trend, but take that with a block of salt because I don't know squat about quantum computing.
33. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  But does it do speculative execution?
34. Re:Huge breakthrough by rkordmaa · 2018-01-13 12:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nope, you can easily simulate 30 qubits on home computer, 49 qubits, not so much. If a quantum computer has enough qubits that no classical computer could ever simulate it, then it's useful because it can do some things classical computer will never be able to do. That limit is thought to be around 50 qubits. The whole fura over quantum computers is that it can bring down computational complexity for some problems, not reduce it to zero and break all the encryption in the world, but bring it down nevertheless and it's a huge thing for some problems making the difference between computable and non-computable. Taking advantage of a quantum computer and doing something useful with it is obviously huge pain in the rear, but with this new machine by Intel we just might start hearing a few interesting successes soon.
35. Re: Huge breakthrough by vtcodger · 2018-01-13 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Intel quantum computer. It'll compute and leak the passwords to every digital device within 200 meters in a single operation. ... Whether you want it to or not.
  
  --
  You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
36. Re: Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-13 12:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's marked troll, but it really wasn't. Look up the patent - 5 engineers + David Rothschild owned it. One of the 5 engineers died a month or so before MH370 went down, the other 4 were on MH370 (along with a bunch of the rest of their company) on a business trip.
37. Re:Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-13 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  DWave*, sorry.
38. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  It's far more likely that humanity will die off before AI is ever created.
39. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  why is this funny?
40. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 13:08 · Score: 0
  
  I believe Moore's law is well defined and relates to transistors density doubling every 18 months. Could be wrong but don't wanna look it up so meh
41. Re:Huge breakthrough by Opyros · 2018-01-13 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  So, have you now become a "quantum computing nutter"? Or are you just being sarcastic?
42. Re:Huge breakthrough by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-01-13 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because he is always funny.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
43. Re:Huge breakthrough by flargleblarg · 2018-01-13 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  The whole fura over quantum computers is ...
  Fura are millet dough balls eaten in Nigeria.
  
  Did you mean furor?
44. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  Let's hook it to the internet and see what happens.
45. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  All five eyesight?
46. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  I think he meant fora.
  Public Key Cryptography will be in danger including those tech using it from online banking, e-commerce, and even bitcoin.
  But symmetric encryption would still be safe, there are algo for symmetric encryption that are unbreakable even with infinite CPU resources.
47. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  Management Engine on that would have its own quantum cpu, using RAM built from strands of DNA from 256 petabyte upgradable to 1024 PB.
48. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  Tessier-Ashpools got them. Or their computer did anyway.
49. Re:Huge breakthrough by Z80a · 2018-01-13 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, it only works when nobody is looking at it.
50. Re:Huge breakthrough by q_e_t · 2018-01-13 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Neural networks were studied before the 1970s. If you look at Hebbian learning, that started in the 1940s. No, they don't work just like the brain, given that the brain is a combination of various elements that work in slightly different ways, and there are many neural networks which have little similarity to any of them.
51. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 20:57 · Score: 0
  
  > But symmetric encryption would still be safe, there are algo for symmetric encryption that are unbreakable even with infinite CPU resources.
  No, there aren't.
52. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 21:02 · Score: 0
  
  Young Luke, trust the Force and aim for the freezer. The frosty bits. And aim for the IT people wearing parkas and huge mitts. Aim for them all. But seriously, the cost of cooling quantum computers when global warming zooms will be too expensive on earth. They'll have to keep moving it on tracks So it stays in shade on the moon.
53. Re:Huge breakthrough by rkordmaa · 2018-01-13 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  You could say that One Time Pad is symmetric encryption that is unbreakable with infinite CPU resources, that's semantics tho as OTP needs a single use key with length equal or greater than message and I think deserves a category all of it's own.
54. Re:Huge breakthrough by michelcolman · 2018-01-13 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  They can change the algorithm pretty easily. As long as a majority of the miners agrees to use the new algorithm starting from a specific date, they can transition to pretty much anything they want and the old bitcoins remain valid. You may have to transfer your bitcoins from an old wallet to a new one, so we'll finally know how many coins have been lost by people forgetting their passwords or erasing their hard drives.
55. Re:Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-14 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing the point. Switching Bitcoin to post-quantum algorithms means a 200+ fold in the size of the blockchain. Currently the blockchain is around 150GB, that would place it at around 30TB. This isn't some decade+ transition which needs to happen, this is within 6 years at the outset. That means the concept of a distributed ledger goes away (most people don't even have 30TB, let alone the willingness to put 30TB worth of storage into use to buy some $100 trinket with Bitcoins.) This means the only way for Bitcoin to survive the post-quantum world is centralization, which goes against the beliefs of their core demographic.
  Just because you can change an algorithm doesn't mean you can do so from a practical standpoint - at the current rate it's actually likely to be around 100TB by the time the change needs to happen, about 1PB by 2030. So tell me, are there any breakthroughs on the horizon to get multi-peta-byte hard drives into consumer PCs and are ISPs similarly likely to allow that kind of bandwidth usage at prices people are willing to pay? (Personally, I'd suspect bandwidth would be less of an issue if everyone is switching to post-quantum cryptographic schemes, but cryptocurrencies are really the only thing which require massive numbers of signatures to be stored to facilitate their existence, so the hard drive issue is a much bigger one.)
56. Re: Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-14 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  I checked, and your story is bullshit.
  You clearly didn't because it isn't.
57. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-14 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  Why do trolls always ask us to "go check". That instantly means you are a troll. Post a link to the patent for us. Yeesh.
58. Re: Huge breakthrough by mnemotronic · 2018-01-14 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Leading to the rise of quantum malware.
  
  --
  The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
59. Re:Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-14 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Is that when the processing speed doubles until all computers can correctly identify black people ?
60. Re:Huge breakthrough by michael_wojcik · 2018-01-14 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. The D-Wave machine does adiabatic quantum computing (assuming it does anything non-classical at all), which isn't even vaguely related to universal quantum computing. It's just a form of annealing that uses quantum tunneling. There's no superposition of states or anything else useful for BQP algorithms like Shor's or Grover's.
61. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-14 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Took me less than a minute on Google and Wikipedia to find out he is right.
62. Re:Huge breakthrough by CaptainDork · 2018-01-14 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's not an under-clocking law.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
63. Re: Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-14 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  I don't exist to spoonfeed you.
64. Re: Huge breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-14 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  R.I.P. NicknameUnavailable.
65. Re:Huge breakthrough by michelcolman · 2018-01-14 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Why would it need a 200+ fold size of the blockchain? If the problem is the reversibility of the private->public key calculation, several quantum-hard alternatives exist that are equivalent in usage, just calculated differently. So you still just need a public key in the block chain and a private key in the wallet, exactly like before.
  As for the proof of work, that can really be anything and you just have to store the verifiable result of that calculation.
  So where would the 200 fold size increase come from?
66. Re:Huge breakthrough by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-15 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  So where would the 200 fold size increase come from?
  The smallest post-quantum public key signature algorithm is 200 times larger than ECDSA (used by Bitcoin currently.) They all go up in size from there.
  There is some potential hope in lattice-based crypto schemes, but those are still 20 times larger (and more importantly, aren't proven to be secure yet, it's entirely possible that a new algorithm will come up within the next half decade that will result in secure lattice-based cryptosystems requiring keys and signatures about 2,000 or more times the size of ECDSA.)
  The only proven secure post-quantum cryptographic schemes for digital signatures right now are hash-based, which require at a minimum 200x the storage requirements. There are some which try to cheat *cough* XMSS *cough* by reducing the security bitsize equivalent (it maxes out at I believe 192bits of security for ~90KB signatures, the bitsize implemented in "post-quantum cryptocurrencies" is actually closer to a laughable 100-bits because it wouldn't fit in the blockchain otherwise, at least as XMSS.)
  Additionally there are multivariant problems which you can build cryptosystems off of, but they are around 60KB for public key + signature (the two components needed for the transaction.) The big issue with all of these is that the public key is laughably small (think the size of a Bitcoin address) while the signature (needed per transaction) is in the 30+KB range.
  There is currently no post-quantum cryptocurrency (though some make the claim, they just do it for marketing purposes because the algorithms aren't even up to modern-day cryptographic standards, let alone post-quantum,) and there isn't likely to be one around the corner.
  TL;DR: Post-quantum cryptoschemes are fucking enormous compared to the trivial ~32byte implementations needed for non-quantum cryptoschemes.
67. Re: Huge breakthrough by david_thornley · 2018-01-15 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Home computers you could just buy, take home, plug in, and use appeared in 1977. There were home computers before then, but they needed more expertise to assemble, and appealed more to hardware types. (I read a review at the time that said that a certain kit was very easy because the reviewer only needed to use his oscilloscope once.)
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Does it come.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 07:58 · Score: 0

...with an Intel ME and Meltdown included?
1. Re:Does it come.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Meltdown was included as a time bomb in all previous processors so everyone would buy the newest NSA approved Intel processors.
2. Re: Does it come.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  Those processors don't exist yet. Sounds like bad timing. One would think the Illuminati deep state would have better control over their slaves.
  Or maybe the deep state is the actual public opinion, and you think they are out to get you because you know you are wrong and refuse to admit being wrong.
  Try to admit wrong doing, and be honest with yourself and lastly think and understand yourself and ideas and follow them through and you won't feel the world is out to get you.
  Paranioa doesn't go away but at least it is managable.
Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by llamalad · 2018-01-13 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's funny (sad, really) that Intel is so diligent about trying to bamboozle everyone into thinking that Spectre (which effects many manufacturers' processors) and Meltdown (which is intel-specific) are the same.
Such bullshit.
1. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What is even more sad is that the Intel CEO dumped all of his stock after learning about the flawed processors, and it looks like he is getting away with it.
2. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Junta · 2018-01-13 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly I don't have a citation, but I am told at least one of the ARM vendors took a similar optimization and as a result is in the same boat as Intel with respect to meltdown.
  The story has been 'intel v. amd' but there are a lot of other players out there.
  The optimization on the face of it doesn't seem *that* obvious of a bad idea: do the access check only if the result would issue, and in all cases you flush the obvious access points. The fact that something that is still inaccessible is in cache and not in main memory was not quite as obvious a threat as people like to pretend.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
3. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  You mean the ARM processor that isn't out yet, that Intel co-designed with ARM? That one?
4. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-13 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  What is even more sad is that the Intel CEO dumped all of his stock after learning about the flawed processors, and it looks like he is getting away with it.
  Not all. Not even close. And the stock didn't move on the news. And you appear to be using "after" to imply "because of", when all we really now is that it was after.
5. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Megol · 2018-01-13 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Citation needed. While the timing is suspect selling stock is a normal thing and needn't be related.
6. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Megol · 2018-01-13 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Are you making things up or just being _extremely_ badly informed?
7. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  No, I am talking about the ARM Cortex-A75 which isn't released yet and Intel had a hand in designing and is susceptible to Meltdown. My, my, don't YOU look stupid?
8. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  You are right. It is normal for a CEO to SELL ALL OF HIS STOCK and options to the minimum level allowed right before a major business event. Perfectly normal. My, my, don't YOU look stupid?
9. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Aighearach · 2018-01-13 09:19 · Score: 2
  
  It is normal for somebody to cash out eventually.
  It isn't improper to sell stock just because some computer people were going to be mad at the company. Insider trader only covers things that affect the stock price. Nothing about this situation suggests that big companies are going to stop buying intel products, and so there is no reason to think that the bad PR will affect the stock price.
  In fact, their recent stock price is the highest it has ever been other than a brief spike during the .com boom/bust.
  If he'd waited until after this flaw went public to sell, the price would have been higher, he'd have made more money, not less! That's because, this doesn't really touch the stock price. In fact, due to Intel's existing market position, many more customers will upgrade early than buy something else, and people who do buy something else are likely to come home on the next purchase after that. Some customers might defer upgrades during the uncertainty, but it won't change their year-on-year upgrade cycles. And Intel has a war chest, they don't have cash flow problems, so there is not much problem there for them.
10. Re: Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  And I think this could have easily gone the other way for Intel and its stock price. Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the public arena. Or concern even.
11. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  You are right. It is perfectly normal. Just disregard all the analysts who have said they have never seen a CEO do it before. What do THEY know?
12. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  He sold all he was allowed to sell. Both his stock and options. I didn't say the stock moved. It wasn't "after" the news became public. Moron.
13. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by blind+biker · 2018-01-13 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what I was going to say - Krzanich obviously got the memo from Intel's brass - make sure you mention Meltdown and Spectre in the same breath, and mention that it's an industry-wide problem.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
14. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  He didn't sell all his stock. You need to read better sources, or read slower, and for comprehension.
15. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  He didn't sell all his stock. You need to read better sources, or read slower, and for comprehension.
  Per his contract he's forced to have 250 thousand shares. He sold more than 240 thousand. So, he sold about 50% of his shares, but, more importantly, he sold all he could. He sold 11 million dollars of Intel shares. If you can't see the big picture...
16. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  Who are these "analysts" and why should anybody place any importance on their statements? We live in a world where people are willing to believe that "anonymous" sources are always truthful. Then there are the "not authorized to speak..." sources which are treated as facts and distributed to the mindless masses. In reality these two dominate sources of information is used to protect the publishers from being sued for slander while allowing them to publish sensationalist articles to increase their market share. All the big media corporations understand that the more conflict they can nurture the more money they make. Facts have become obsolete. Inconvenient facts tend to get in the way of those with an agenda supported by their own facts. Anything that contradicts some ones cause is dismissed as fantasy.
17. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by drinkypoo · 2018-01-13 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Insider trader only covers things that affect the stock price. Nothing about this situation suggests that big companies are going to stop buying intel products,
  If they just stop building all-intel networks and mix some AMD in, which is actually pretty likely going forward since they have more PCIE lanes and the same performance (after vulnerability mitigation) and cost less.
  
  and so there is no reason to think that the bad PR will affect the stock price.
  I think it probably will, it just hasn't sunk in yet.
  
  In fact, their recent stock price is the highest it has ever been other than a brief spike during the .com boom/bust.
  So far, Intel's PR is working. The investors believe their lies about performance impact. When it continues to emerge that they are lying about this, I think you will see some impact.
  We'll find out.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18. Re: Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Dixie_Flatline · 2018-01-13 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  It was a normal, automatic, scheduled stock sell off. I think most CEOs are making too much for what they bring to the table, but there wasnâ(TM)t anything particularly insidious about this.
19. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  You're conflating a few things. ARM cooperated with Intel on the Cortex A55, actually, but it wasn't a processor design collaboration. Intel worked with ARM's processor design so that it could be manfactured on Intel's 22nm process instead of the 28nm process ARM normally used. In other words it was a die shrink collaboration.
  The upcoming A75 is susceptible to Meltdown because ARM made many of the same bad design decisions that Intel did trying to eke more performance from speculative execution, not because Intel helped them design it.
  Speculative execution attacks like Spectre are an interesting class of exploit. I expect to see many similar exploits in the coming years.
20. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Aighearach · 2018-01-13 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Every fall, we get some pattern of rain and sun that causes 25% of locals to declare, "I've never seen it do this before!" Yes you have, dummy. You just didn't notice it, because it isn't a significant thing.
21. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Aighearach · 2018-01-13 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand why it is so popular. If I only know three things about a person: That they're intentionally anonymous; that they're not supposed to be telling me anything; and that they're telling me things anyways, then all I actually know that has any clear value is that they're dishonest.
  The more clearly people are full of shit, the more easy it is for them to persuade these TV-headed sheep.
22. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Aighearach · 2018-01-13 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but why would they do that? There is nothing about this that suggests that diversification of CPUs is going to save them money somehow.
  This means, computers they bought in the past were 1% more expensive than they had originally written down. Supply diversification doesn't help that at all.
  I think it doesn't matter if their PR works or not, either way it is not a significant hit on their business. Probably why they didn't put a lot of effort into it. PCs are mostly commodity now, and datacenter customers really don't care about what is on the news.
23. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-13 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  What I wrote was correct. What you wrote was wrong. And then when you still failed to understand you called me a moron.
24. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by drinkypoo · 2018-01-13 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but why would they do that? There is nothing about this that suggests that diversification of CPUs is going to save them money somehow.
  Of course it will. AMD CPUs are cheaper. How will that not save them money?
  
  This means, computers they bought in the past were 1% more expensive than they had originally written down. Supply diversification doesn't help that at all.
  That's not how it works. People built whole clusters out of intel processors. Now that mitigation will cost them 10-50% depending on workload, they will need 10-50% more nodes. This failure on Intel's part has also created a whole lot of work for administrators because they botched the patch, it's failed on a lot of Win10 machines (can't apply the update, can't remove the update.) They botched the silicon and then they botched the patch, what exactly is Intel's claim to fame now?
  
  PCs are mostly commodity now, and datacenter customers really don't care about what is on the news.
  I think they do.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by rb12345 · 2018-01-14 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'd argue that this all comes down to patents. The OoO/speculative execution methods in the P6 architecture would be patented, and those P6 patents ought to be expiring about now. That means that using the fast Intel method of speculation would make sense if you are designing a brand new processor with OoO execution. The older ARM chips did little/no out-of-order or speculative execution, so the cost of adding any particular variant is probably similar.
  Meanwhile, because AMD was competing with Intel directly on x86, they had to produce processors with OoO execution for years to keep up. The P6 patents meant AMD created their own implementation of OoO execution, and now the patents are no longer an issue, the cost of redesigning the chips meant that AMD stuck to their existing methods.
26. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by dcw3 · 2018-01-14 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, this is incorrect. All you have to do is look at the periodic insider transactions. He had an option to sell at a set price, and it went as an automatic transaction. Yes, it was a much larger number of shares than his usual, but hardly "all of his stock". And if you scroll through these transactions, you'll see that all officers make frequent automatic transactions...it's part of their compensation package.
  https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
27. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Aighearach · 2018-01-14 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  If they already thought AMD was cheaper, then literally nothing changed.
  Business analysis is just too hard for most people. It is sad because this isn't even complicated.
  Your cost analysis ignores a lot of factors; and the actual range is more like 0-35%. But remember, that isn't just Meltdown, that's the combined patches. Also, does everybody with clusters even run untrusted code on them? No, of course not, that's mostly only ISPs. Cloud providers are "hurt" but one isn't really hurt more than the next and the prices will just go up to compensate. Very little of that processing is surplus calculations that would be deferred if prices went up. So it's mostly a wash.
  Intel's claim to fame was never about support, people don't normally even need CPU support. Shrill people said the same shrill stuff when past, much worse, bugs happened. This is bad, but it isn't as bad as six months of science getting thrown out because of calculation errors. Golly, imagine if something like that happened! lol
28. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by drinkypoo · 2018-01-14 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  If they already thought AMD was cheaper, then literally nothing changed.
  They didn't think AMD had a lower TCO. But now intel's TCO is going to jump substantially, because they're giving less power. Their claim to fame has long been power efficiency. They no longer have that, because of the reduction in IPC due to mitigation of this complete failure to be responsible in silicon design. Now they will know that AMD is cheaper, when before the situation was muddied by Intel's cheating in silicon.
  
  Your cost analysis ignores a lot of factors; and the actual range is more like 0-35%.
  That is horseshit, there have been actual benchmarks showing more than 35%. You're reducing the upper and lower bounds beyond what has been proven in the real world. Stop fellating Intel.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
29. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Aighearach · 2018-01-15 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  If you're running your datacenter at 20% load, and your machines are suddenly an average of 7% slower, how much has your TCO changed?
  A little bit. A little tiny bit. In most cases, less than the cost of the engineering hours just in evaluating the effect of these bugs! And everybody has to evaluate that, because of Spectre, not just Intel customers.
  Your idiotic idea that I'm "fellating Intel" is par for you, though; I don't even like Intel, I'm a hardcore AMD user. I simply can do math, and understand business planning. I'd like for this to be something that would affect their stock price in a significant way, but it isn't! And that is easy to verify, just look up their stock price, click on a 1 year (or longer) history, and check the price when the CEO dumped his stock, and check the price now. Is it moving the price in the way you predict, or not? (Spoiler: Not)
  Why are you such an idiot that you argue against objective facts with subjective theories, even when the data is freely available? Your theory doesn't match reality because your theory is wrong, duh.
30. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by drinkypoo · 2018-01-15 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  If you're running your datacenter at 20% load, and your machines are suddenly an average of 7% slower, how much has your TCO changed?
  You're not running your datacenter at 20% load. That's a nice fantasy figure. And it's not 7% slower, I notice that you keep revising that estimate downward when you need to be going upward. Hardware that's been utilized up the wazoo and has multiple VMs running on it is going to have more impact, not less.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
31. Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre by Aighearach · 2018-01-15 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  If your datacenter has high load, you didn't even meet your peak needs. Data centers must have significant overcapacity. For most this will be absorbed in the margins, and the operating cost increase will be very low, consisting mostly of electricity. Future provisioning formulas will be slightly altered.
  You're just flailing and guessing.
  My numbers are trending down because the arrow of time is moving forwards and the quality of impact estimates are going up.
  Another mistake you made was in assuming that if they're deciding based on TCO that they they change suppliers as soon as the competitors numbers dip across the line, but it doesn't work that way at all. They make a TCO decision, and then they change it if the result has changed substantially, not based on if it moves a hair over. Change has cost, too, and so once that decision is made, there is a tendency to stick with it until the market has substantially changed. Even just information like, "has the market changed substantially?" has a cost. You don't want a high level of thrash in your supply chain. And we won't know what the future efficiency and TCO numbers will be; we have to wait for Intel to release information about what silicon changes they will make. They don't even know that yet, we certainly can't measure it yet, and purchasing managers and technology officers are going to be in total agreement that the current situation is "wait and see."
How many hours of music is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:02 · Score: 0

Can I spool up at least 0.0001 seconds before exhausting my entire system's memory?
So many claims of working qubit computers... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:04 · Score: 2, Informative

But not one has demonstrated true quantum solutions in compute time faster than classical computing - yet. I'm not saying it is impossible, just that this feels very much like cold fusion in the 90s. We have been one year from a quantum computer for fifteen years. Before anyone jumps up and down screaming DWave, we know these are not true quantum computers, more likely magnetically paired computers. There are entire papers written about them.
Intel and IBM spark my interest because they tend to actually make real hardware and do their homework. But notice that even Intel says this test platform will not be ready until 2020 or beyond.
So here we sit for another 2-3 years to see if the claims of a true quantum computer that can (1) maintain coherence and (2) outperform a classical computer at the same task, will materialize. /me grabs popcorn.
1. Re: So many claims of working qubit computers... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  If they get it working, likely already have, you will not hear about it. This is NSA wet dream.
2. Re:So many claims of working qubit computers... by rkordmaa · 2018-01-13 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that 56 qubit computer has been simulated on a supercomputer its no wonder you don't hear faster than classical news yet. Any quantum computer with less than 56 qubits, that supercomputer can beat it.
3. Re: So many claims of working qubit computers... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-14 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  D-Wave produces Quantum Annealers. These are better than classical computers at certain tasks to the point that classical computers might not be able to find a solution at all.
  it is a constructed problem probably not found in nature, but Google published a paper about it a few years ago. They ran a problem on a D-Wave One (I think), that ran roughly 10^8 times faster than on a classical computer.
Predictions by ChatHuant · 2018-01-13 08:06 · Score: 5, Informative

" This is also why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point."
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
1. Re:Predictions by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Plus my phone has more processing power than those DEC computers. And since we know that past performance always predicts future performance, we will all have quantum iPhones soon. Progress is inevitable. Just look at Moore's Law.
2. Re: Predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  Its hilaruous how all you Millennials think youre going to live like George Jetson ANY DAY NOW!
3. Re:Predictions by burtosis · 2018-01-13 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  " This is also why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point."
  "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
  Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
  Whelp, if someone did ever get a quantum computer in thier home, one thing I'm sure of is 640k of memory ought to be enough for anyone.
4. Re:Predictions by SeaFox · 2018-01-13 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  " This is also why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point."
  "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
  Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
  I think the problem here is the refrigeration equipment required for stable operation (you know, that thing you're leaving off to take the summary's quote out of context), not that no one would want a quantum computer in their home. The Apple II came out in 1977, and could be set up on a small table.
5. Re: Predictions by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  We are going to be living on Mars soon. Sorry to leave you behind Grandpa.
6. Re: Predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  There is plenty if tech never suited for consumer use. This is one of them. If you have to keep something that cold for it to function it will never be the size of a phone let alone be safe to have anywhere in a home.
7. Re: Predictions by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Remember the first home computers? They only had like 4k of memory and ran 1Mhz processors. Therefore quantum computers will be everywhere evenutally.
8. Re: Predictions by tsa · 2018-01-13 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't see the connection.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
9. Re:Predictions by tsa · 2018-01-13 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Quantum biology is slowly becoming big. Proteins are the answer to the cooling problem.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
10. Re: Predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Even out of context, it took the silicon revolution to make a practical home computer. Vacuum tubes made a reasonably sized machine out of reach for the home consumer. Can we make a quantum computer that doesn't have ridiculous power requirements? Ask the same question to some in the early 60's about a handheld computer.
11. Re: Predictions by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  It comes down to this: since computers have gotten faster, all things are going to improve at the same rate. It is Slashdot rule #1.
12. Re:Predictions by ChatHuant · 2018-01-13 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think the problem here is the refrigeration equipment required for stable operation
  The first vacuum tube computers had very similar problems: they needed industrial grade power supplies, required cooling, tubes would fail regularly (the ENIAC engineers considered it a success when they reduced the tube failure rate to one every couple of days). And, to be fair, what Ken Olsen probably meant was nobody would want a machine like his company's PDP or VAX computers, built with discrete transistors and/or relatively simple integrated circuits.
  
  Both you and him are however making the same mistake: assuming the current technology will remain mostly static in the future. Just as vacuum tube computers were replaced with transistors and later integrated circuits, I expect current quantum bit technologies to be supplanted by better solutions, which would bring quantum machines in the home.
  
  I do believe though they'll mostly be used to view all cat videos in the world simultaneously.
13. Re:Predictions by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  You are right, since vacuum tubes were supplanted by transistors, the current quantum bit technology will also be replaced by something better too. After all, technology only gets better and better.
14. Re:Predictions by ceoyoyo · 2018-01-13 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  There were no fundamental physical barriers to scaling down classical circuits to make a modern microprocessor, although you did have to have some imagination to see the possibilities.
  There are very good reasons to think that it may not be possible to make quantum circuits that operate high temperatures.
15. Re:Predictions by tomxor · 2018-01-13 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  " This is also why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point."
  "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
  Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
  People wont want it because they probably wont even know they are using it, it's not comparable to a normal computer in terms of it's visibility, it's more like an extra component for very specific applications. Not to downplay how amazing they are but a quantum computer doesn't magically mean it can do all traditional computing faster (it can't), it can do very specific esoteric problems much faster and has other interesting unique esoteric properties - but it's often hard to figure out how to do them. Quantum processors are more likely to be a specialised processor like a DSP or a GPU, It's easy to imagine it being used as an ASIC hardware encryption.
16. Re:Predictions by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-01-13 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Since Olsen was referring to home automation, given the security problems, he may have been right.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
17. Re:Predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  That's a fairly poor analysis. Ask someone if they can fit 1,000,000 tubes in 1 cm^2. There were significant fundamental barriers to scaling vacuum tubes. The problem was only solved with the advent a completely different technology.
  Quantum entanglement doesn't require low temperatures.
18. Re:Predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-14 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  "may not be possible" is not the same as "will never be possible". The summary implied the latter.
19. Re:Predictions by ceoyoyo · 2018-01-14 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  The poster I replied to expressed his belief that quantum computers would become ubiquitous because that's what happened with classical computers. I pointed out that analogy could be a poor guide because of fundamental differences between the two technologies. I don't think it's impossible, and chose my words carefully based on that belief.
  Summaries frequently say stupid things.
  It is interesting to note that classical computers are also becoming more centralized again.
Crowdfund a hit? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:09 · Score: 0

If legal means won't punish him, use extralegal ones. Escrowed virtual currency to whoever collects the bounty on Brian Krzanich's head.
Quantum Domination / Supremacy by cold+fjord · 2018-01-13 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Intel’s New Chip Aims For Quantum Supremacy

. . . those 49 qbits can already do something that almost no traditional computer, even a supercomputer, can: solve a sorting problem that has up to 5.63 trillion possible outcomes. This is right around a milestone called “quantum supremacy”–the point at which a standard computer can’t even simulate a quantum machine.
The promise of a quantum computer comes from one of those spooky aspects of quantum physics, whereby each qbit can hold two (or more) values simultaneously. Each time you add a qbit, you raise two to a higher exponent value. In this case, two raised to the 49th power yields 562,949,950,000,000 variations that can be compared at once. This technique is ideal for certain types of calculations, like speculative chemistry research that simulates the interactions of dozens of electrons, around multiple atoms, at once. It’s also useful for cracking digital encryption.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
1. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by ceoyoyo · 2018-01-13 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, no. My computer has no problem sorting lists of 64-bit values, which are bigger than that. Also, a 49 bit quantum computer is going to be really terrible at sorting anything that big. Five or six bits plus error correction maybe.
2. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by tomxor · 2018-01-13 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Each time you add a qbit, you raise two to a higher exponent value. In this case, two raised to the 49th power yields 562,949,950,000,000 variations that can be compared at once. This technique is ideal for certain types of calculations
  Be careful not to loose sight of how much emphasis should be applied to the specificity in "specific calculations"... Almost all of the computations that happen on your regular computer 99% of the time will not be sped up by quantum computing.
3. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  Use a bubble sort.
4. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  My computer has no problem sorting lists of 64-bit values, which are bigger than that.
  The fact that the values are 64-bit has nothing to do with it. I sort lists of 256-bit values all the time (for solving a problem similar to a second preimage attack); that's not the problem. But I'd have a lot of trouble sorting 2^256 values, or even 2^64 values.
5. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by rkordmaa · 2018-01-13 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, quantum computer is not a replacement for classical computers, but it should be able to do few things classical computers will never be able to do, provided good enough quantum computer and good enough algorithms.
6. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2018-01-13 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  That works better if you use bubble memory, right?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by cold+fjord · 2018-01-13 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you understand the difference.
  
  How does superposition help?
  The difference between regular computers and quantum computers boils down to how they approach a problem.
  A regular computer tries to solve a problem the same way you might try to escape a maze – by trying every possible corridor, turning back at dead ends, until you eventually find the way out. But superposition allows the quantum computer to try all the paths at once – in essence, finding the shortcut.
  Two bits in your computer can be in four possible states (00, 01, 10, or 11), but only one of them at any time. This limits the computer to processing one input at a time (like trying one corridor in the maze).
  In a quantum computer, two qubits can also represent the exact same four states (00, 01, 10, or 11). The difference is, because of superposition, the qubits can represent all four at the same time. That’s a bit like having four regular computers running side-by-side.
  If you add more bits to a regular computer, it can still only deal with one state at a time. But as you add qubits, the power of your quantum computer grows exponentially. For the mathematically inclined, we can say that if you have “n” qubits, you can simultaneously represent 2n states.)
  
  Qudits: The Real Future of Quantum Computing?
  
  The superpositions that qubits can adopt let them each help perform two calculations at once. If two qubits are quantum-mechanically linked, or entangled, they can help perform four calculations simultaneously; three qubits, eight calculations; and so on. As a result, a quantum computer with 300 qubits could perform more calculations in an instant than there are atoms in the known universe, solving certain problems much faster than classical computers. However, superpositions are extraordinarily fragile, making it difficult to work with multiple qubits.
  I'm pretty sure your PC isn't going to be able to do that.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
8. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by ceoyoyo · 2018-01-14 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  I understand fine thanks.
  The claim in the article is this:
  
  those 49 qbits can already do something that almost no traditional computer, even a supercomputer, can: solve a sorting problem that has up to 5.63 trillion possible outcomes.
  Any computer can sort 49 bit numbers, no problem. Classical computers can do it faster than Intel's quantum computer too. *Even if they simulate how the quantum computer does it.*
  That might change in the future, when quantum computers advance to the point where they can actually do things classical computers can't. That's called "quantum supremacy" it it explicitly is not achieved by this processor. The truth is, Intel's 49 bit quantum computer can't even sort 49 bit numbers, at least not very well. Without using most of those bits for error correction, you just get random answers.
9. Re:Quantum Domination / Supremacy by tomxor · 2018-01-14 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  The superpositions that qubits can adopt let them each help perform two calculations at once. If two qubits are quantum-mechanically linked, or entangled, they can help perform four calculations simultaneously; three qubits, eight calculations; and so on. As a result, a quantum computer with 300 qubits could perform more calculations in an instant than there are atoms in the known universe, solving certain problems much faster than classical computers. However, superpositions are extraordinarily fragile, making it difficult to work with multiple qubits.
  I'm pretty sure your PC isn't going to be able to do that.
  This description is really misleading when taken out of context and without understanding how you extract "the answer", it doesn't literally do N calculations at once, but rather with the right kind of computational problem you can coerce the output to "pick" the correct specific permutation through properties that they share with the others, that's the best not-very good layman explanation I can provide because I barely understand it myself and it's really hard to understand. Without the right kind of problem you will just get a random answer... much like you randomly get a single photon position position in the double slit experiment when a measurement taken and the field collapses.
crystal-ball gazing by FranklinWebber · 2018-01-13 08:10 · Score: 1

Intel : '20 millikelvin ... why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point'
How do they know that no part of my house is below 20 mK? It's kinda cold in here right now.
More seriously, how do they know that no other qbit technology will ever remove their low-temperature restriction?
1. Re:crystal-ball gazing by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  You know where it is really cold? Mars. I am thinking these will be great for when Musk sets up his outpost on Mars.
2. Re:crystal-ball gazing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  First they need to prove a working qubit register. Then they can work on increasing temperatures. Both are unknowns at this time.
3. Re:crystal-ball gazing by currently_awake · 2018-01-13 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Mars: The "Fragility" of quantum computers mixed with the high radiation enviornment of Mars, combined with a slow hardware upgrade rate (long travel time).
4. Re:crystal-ball gazing by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, we will just shield them with asteroid dust. They will be fine.
5. Re:crystal-ball gazing by darthsilun · 2018-01-13 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  ... combined with a slow hardware upgrade rate (long travel time)
  Bandwidth isn't a problem. The latency sucks big time.
6. Re:crystal-ball gazing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  Wellllll RTFA is kind of an old response, but here it is. He is talking about the kind of qubits they are doing. AND he even adds this disclaimer
  
  there’s no known way to build hand-sized or even desktop quantum machines that incorporate the cooling required.
7. Re:crystal-ball gazing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  Actually it's not that cold on Mars, nowhere near as cold as this, and it also gets fucking hot.
8. Re:crystal-ball gazing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 17:37 · Score: 0
  
  When did you switch from grumpy old man to full sarcastic millennial emulator?
Bubble Memory by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:10 · Score: 0

49 Qbits???
Haha !!! What is this, a joke ?
Cool, but... by SurenEnfiajyan · 2018-01-13 08:16 · Score: 0

Does it have Meltdown and Spectre bugs?
1. Re:Cool, but... by ebvwfbw · 2018-01-14 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Does it have Meltdown and Spectre bugs?
  Of course not. Don't be so silly. Different technology. They have a whole set of new bugs and problems. Different PR people to hide them.
like an arsonist by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:19 · Score: 0

that personally thanks all the firefighters who responded
"working together" my ass.
Simple survival tactics.
Spooky Privacy Invasion at a Distance by CamD · 2018-01-13 08:20 · Score: 1

Spooky Privacy Invasion at a Distance.
So then what's new?
Meltdown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:26 · Score: 0

49Qbits - Meltdown = 34.3Qbits
sigh - "deep space" has no temp by dAzED1 · 2018-01-13 08:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

"operate at about 20 millikelvin -- 250 times colder than deep space" - I assume he's referring to areas of outer space that are a near-complete vacuum, and are far away from anything. Guess what - no temp there. Only 'things' can have a temperature, non-things can't. It would be like saying deep space was hairy, or had a nice singing voice.
1. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 08:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually deep space does have temperature (2.725 K) mainly because of the cosmic microwave background. This seems to imply that 20 mK is 135 times colder than deep space.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
2. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by TrekkieGod · 2018-01-13 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  I give you the cosmic microwave background.
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
3. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by Waffle+Iron · 2018-01-13 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Deep space is not completely empty. Interstellar space averages about one million particles per m^3, and those particles to indeed have a temperature. In some places that temperature is high, but presumably they're talking about the lowest it can get, which is the temperature of the cosmic background radiation.
4. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's great to be pompously wrong, and you are pompously wrong.
5. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  "20 mK is 135 times colder than deep space."
  Can someone please explain to me how you can say something is "times something" when the second article is less than the first?
  This came up on the news this week with this claim:
  Michelle Williams made 1,500 times less than co-star Mark Wahlberg to re-shoot All The Money in the World.
  Is it just an inversion? So actually it should be "Mark made 1500 times more than Michelle"? While the [mathematically] correct inversion of that statement would be: "Michelle made 1/1500 times less than Mark"?
  Is this just lazy American writing on top of poor skills with maths?
  Thoughts welcome.
6. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by burtosis · 2018-01-13 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  The cosmic microwave background isn't the same everywhere.
  
  Space has some large voids in it where time passes faster than our reference frame here, which stretches out the cmb wavelength to feel cooler there.
  Near a singularity, if you fought gravity and stood still near it, you would experience a very hot background due again to time passing much much slower there. If you look into space, the farther those places are away, the hotter the CMB is there due to expansion of space.
7. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  To explain this further, something small enough, left in deep space, would eventually reach 2.725 degrees Kelvin, because it would be heated by the photons comprising the cosmic microwave background (basically, the photons left over from back when the universe was really hot, shortly after the big bang).
8. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by GuB-42 · 2018-01-13 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Can someone please explain to me how you can say something is "times something" when the second article is less than the first?
  Not too shocking.
  Here in another context : this piece of wire (1 ohm) is 10 times more conductive than that one (10 ohm). That's mathematically correct when we consider that conductance is the inverse of resistance. This case is particularly convenient because conductance actually has a unit : the siemens, which is the inverse of the ohm. So we go from 1/10 siemens to 1 siemens, a regular 10 time increase.
  Another example : 10 times slower means 10 times more seconds per meter, but it is a unusual unit, so we divide the number or meters per second instead. Nothing wrong here.
9. Re:sigh - "deep space" has no temp by quenda · 2018-01-14 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Deep space is not completely empty.
  Near enough. In space, temperature is about photons, not matter.
  If you check the sky temperature with an infrared thermometer, you will find it much colder than the air temperature.
Do not try this at home by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:00 · Score: 0

I think there is a world market for maybe five quantum computers.
Quantum computing by burtosis · 2018-01-13 09:04 · Score: 3, Informative

This article reminded me it's about time I gave my kids the talk.
1. Re:Quantum computing by TeknoHog · 2018-01-13 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Nice. In case you buy into some of the crappy analogies, a little common sense might help too. Suppose you worked out a problem with all possible inputs at once in parallel. The output would have all the possible results in parallel, so how would you pick the one you need?
  It's been a while since I studied Shor's algorithm in detail, but the gist of it would be that it's a lot more elaborate than elementary factorization by trial and error using primes. Simply running sha256 on a quantum computer won't magically invert the hash function.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:16 · Score: 0

Intel did this? Isnâ(TM)t Intel the corporation that screwed up royally with their CPUs?
1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  Just a cover up to recover the slumping of intel shares.
Goodbye Bitcoin by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-13 09:19 · Score: 1

I hardly knew ye. Another ~1,000 qubits and it's fucked.
1. Re:Goodbye Bitcoin by Orgasmatron · 2018-01-13 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  There are public key encryption systems that appear to be quantum resistant. It is really trivial to add another script type - just reassign one of the many OP_RETURN codes.
  Oh, and the entire rest of the world will be replacing every single deployed cryptosystem during the same window.
  
  --
  See that "Preview" button?
2. Re:Goodbye Bitcoin by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-13 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  There are no post-quantum cryptocurrencies. The issue is that a post-quantum signature is at a minimum 30KB. That's 30KB per transaction. It's not happening.
3. Re:Goodbye Bitcoin by Orgasmatron · 2018-01-16 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Today, there is no point in spending 30KB per transaction. Call me unsurprised that no one is doing it today.
  When ECDSA is crackable within a meaningful timeframe (a few hours)? It'll be cheap. Either actually cheap, or at least relatively cheap compared to not having bitcoin at all.
  Oh, and if you haven't been paying attention, segwit moves the signature out of the permanent part of the block. I'm personally not a big fan, but it seems to be here to stay. More network traffic, more disk cache for the UTXO set, but not a permanent storage burden for the entire world.
  
  --
  See that "Preview" button?
4. Re:Goodbye Bitcoin by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-01-16 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Segwit doesn't remove the need for the signatures, it just creates secondary blockchains in addition to the original. The overall size is actually larger.
Quantum computing vs quantum encryption. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:29 · Score: 0

Which will win? Will quantum encryption negate quantum computing?
1. Re:Quantum computing vs quantum encryption. by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  That is uncertain.
Glaven by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:31 · Score: 0

I predict that within 100 years, quantum computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger, and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own them.
1. Re:Glaven by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  You must be American. Europeans discovered about 100 years ago that Kings were extremely bad ideas and got rid of most of them, or significantly neutered them except in the most backward countries which had to wait for another 30 years or so.
  These days, it only seems it's only Americans who think retarded royalty is the way to go.
640 qubits. by Blaede · 2018-01-13 09:34 · Score: 3, Funny

640 qubits ought to be enough for anyone.
History repeated. by guruevi · 2018-01-13 09:44 · Score: 1

"This is also why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point"
About a hundred years ago, a computer cost several millions of dollars and took up a whole factory floor. "This is why we won't be seeing computers/telephones/radios/television/movies in anyone's house at any point" (variations of which were uttered by IBM, DEC, Western Union, Warner, AT&T, Popular Mechanics, ...)
It may not be in my lifetime, but I fully expect quantum computing to come to the home within the next 100 years.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
1. Re:History repeated. by 110010001000 · 2018-01-13 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because digital computers did this it is only natural that everything will. Eventually humans will cost 2 cents and be only a few millimeters wide.
2. Re:History repeated. by gtall · 2018-01-13 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, comparing apples and oranges is surely a way to success.
3. Re:History repeated. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-14 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  "This is also why we won't be seeing quantum computers in anyone's house at any point"
  About a hundred years ago, a computer cost several millions of dollars and took up a whole factory floor. "This is why we won't be seeing computers/telephones/radios/television/movies in anyone's house at any point" (variations of which were uttered by IBM, DEC, Western Union, Warner, AT&T, Popular Mechanics, ...)
  It may not be in my lifetime, but I fully expect quantum computing to come to the home within the next 100 years.
  About a hundred years ago?? Hmm, so they had factory floor sized computers in 1918? I think you are confusing two different World Wars.
  IBM was in existence 100 years ago (selling time clocks and machinery for punched cards, not computers), but DEC was founded in 1957, just 60 years ago.
  Feel free to make sweeping generalisations, but at least try to get your history correct.
Not a breakthrough achievement by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 09:47 · Score: 0

When 51 and 53 Qubit versions have already been achieved: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609581/a-quantum-boost-for-a-different-kind-of-computer/
"The two systems both use atoms but work in different ways. The MIT-Harvard system handles 51 qubits by using lasers to trap neutral atoms in an excited state. The Maryland-NIST machine, which handles 53 qubits, traps ytterbium ions in place using gold-coated electrodes. "
1. Re:Not a breakthrough achievement by rkordmaa · 2018-01-13 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  read your article "The resulting systems are not universal quantum computers capable of performing any calculation"
Meltdown and Spectre by CRB9000 · 2018-01-13 09:48 · Score: 1

It does come with the IME exploits, allowing an attacker access to the underpinnings of the Universe. Watch for the GUM and BRANE exploits that will do physical harm to the GOD.
1. Re:Meltdown and Spectre by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  Phreaking hilarious.
Ok. Fine. Whatever. by Opportunist · 2018-01-13 10:15 · Score: 1

Any news on fixing Meltdown and Spectre?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:Ok. Fine. Whatever. by TeknoHog · 2018-01-13 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Meltdown itself reflects a form of quantum computing within Intel CPUs. It performs multiple fetches at once and tunnels through permission barriers using spooky action at a distance. It used to be rather limited -- imagine what they can do when the entire CPU works the same way!
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
2. Re:Ok. Fine. Whatever. by Opportunist · 2018-01-13 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so the "encryption will be worthless when quantum computers arrive" doesn't come from them being able to factor every number easily and with trivial time consumption but from them being inherently so insecure that you can't keep any private key private?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Need 2 more dimensions ... by CaptainDork · 2018-01-13 10:31 · Score: 4, Funny

“And this is how you shall make it: The length of the CPU shall be 300 qubits, its width 50 qubits, and its height 30 qubits.” (Genesis 6:15)

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 10:38 · Score: 0

Is this speed calculation before or after a firmware update to protect against meltdown and spectre?
2007 called, it wants its news back by Garridan · 2018-01-13 11:59 · Score: 1

D-Wave recently released its DW2000Q qubits. Where 2000 qubits are guaranteed to be calibrated, the actual device contains 2048 qubits. D-Wave operates its refrigerators around half the temperature, and 48 qubits is their acceptable error margin. So, good job, Intel, your hot quantum computer is dinky and negligibly small
1. Re: 2007 called, it wants its news back by rkordmaa · 2018-01-13 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  There are many ways to build something you can call "quantum computer" not all are equal and actually do the same thing, number of qubits is not all, what operations you can actually do with them matters.
2. Re: 2007 called, it wants its news back by Garridan · 2018-01-13 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's all true, of course, but the fragility mentioned in the article is a hard barrier to scaling. Wake me up when an independent research group demonstrates a scaling advantage on any problem class
It's probably a 34.3 Q-bit system by nehumanuscrede · 2018-01-13 13:56 · Score: 1

since Intel built it.
Take any claims about how amazing they are with a grain of salt these days until all the bugs and problems have been identified.
**cough MELTDOWN**
**cough SPECTRE**
Well the patch to fix the vulnerabilities will only have a 30% impact on processor performance :|
It works great! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 14:15 · Score: 0

I just managed login to the root account from guest.
1. Re:It works great! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 17:00 · Score: 0
  
  via the IME right?
Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 14:25 · Score: 0

He only "scheduled" to dump the stock after the bug was discovered
1. Re: Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-14 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Another troll. How about you post a link that backs up your statement?
Nice post by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 14:51 · Score: 0

Helo this is about wifi???
www.gaybhains.com
nice by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-13 17:06 · Score: 0

good
Room temperature quantum computing by Tim12s · 2018-01-13 19:31 · Score: 1

I'm certain this will be one of the first tasks of the first quantum computers once the teams figure out how to ask the question.