Slashdot Mirror
Two Quantum Computing Bills Are Coming To Congress (gizmodo.com)
Quantum computing has made it to the United States Congress. "Quantum computing is the next technological frontier that will change the world, and we cannot afford to fall behind," said Senator Kamala Harris (D-California) in a statement passed to Gizmodo. "We must act now to address the challenges we face in the development of this technology -- our future depends on it." From the report: The bill introduced by Harris in the Senate focuses on defense, calling for the creation of a consortium of researchers selected by the Chief of Naval Research and the Director of the Army Research Laboratory. The consortium would award grants, assist with research, and facilitate partnerships between the members. Another, yet-to-be-introduced bill, seen in draft form by Gizmodo, calls for a 10-year National Quantum Initiative Program to set goals and priorities for quantum computing in the US; invest in the technology; and partner with academia and industry. An office within the Department of Energy would coordinate the program. Another group would include members from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, the office of the Director of National Intelligence to coordinate research and education activity between agencies. Furthermore, the draft bill calls for the establishment of up to five Quantum Information Science research centers, as well as two multidisciplinary National Centers for Quantum Research and Education.
Sure, nobody could so far put up any evidence that Quantum Computing will ever be able to be more efficient than conventional computing, but hey, let's allocate billions to the belief in the hype.
AFAIK, your post is complete nonsense. It is perfectly well known for which tasks quantum computing will be more efficient than conventional computing and how many functioning Qbits you need (with given error rates). Note that the computational power does not increase linearly when doubling qbits. Apart from the tasks that we know can be solved, there is an ever expanding list of research results of more tasks that quantum computers are suitable for. You have to think of a quantum computer like a giant and fragile (unfortunately) co-processor that is insanely fast for certain tasks, not as a replacement for conventional computers.
The can use it to compute their blockchains.
The future will be awesome with this.
No sig today...
That basically means it is a dud. There have been countless others before. This one just ghosts around a bit longer, because it sounds a bit like "magic" and people without an actual grasp of Science like that.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Only way to destroy Bitcoin is to accellerate Quantum Computing.
Bitcoin is doing just fine destroying itself thankyouverymuch
Only quantum apps can be appy, not Luddite Moore transistor apps.
Quantum!
Gosh, if only someone had thought of this before. Creating a sort of Defense Agency to oversee Research Project Administration.
Imagine the innovations that could be unleashed! We could call it DARPA. Oh, waitaminute.
Hey Kamala! The 60's are calling, and they want their idea back
Quantum computers can break some modern crypto. For example, RSA is based on the unproven assumption that factoring is a "hard" problem. We already know that it's not a hard problem for quantum computers. RSA is toast with quantum computing and it's not the only one. It's not about efficiency. It's about completing the totalitarian panopticon, and it's scary shit.
If it doesn't put the coal miners back to work it isn't going to go anywhere. #MAGA!
We need a computer to tell us when to use "you're" and when to use "your". Additional computers help us learn about the difference between "loser" and "looser".
So this is a story about TWO bills about Quantum Computing coming before the US Congress, and NO jokes so far relating to quantum theory, quantum mechanics, the bills being quantum entangled with each other, nothing suggesting we are able to know the way one bill will be voted on, even if deliberations are held in closed session, merely by observing the state of the other despite the distance between them... what HAPPENED to you, SLASHDOT?!? There should be like, fifty jokes about this so far! FIFTY! This has been here for... minutes and minutes! WTF? Come ON, guys! Up the GAME! This is like a politician's sex scandal and you write jokes for late night television show hosts! They practically write themselves! I'm no comedian, and I've already come up with like, THREE! Let's GO!
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Who should be allowed to do it and who should not. As if the bad guys will give a rat's ass about your silly laws. On the other hand, it's possible that the NSA is already ahead of private industry in QC and these bills are just a move to drag commercial development down into a giant bureaucratic clusterfuck.
Have gnu, will travel.
No, the space program of the '60s was a way to spend a lot of money in a way the public would find acceptable, to develop the technology needed for precision warhead delivery.
>It is perfectly well known for which tasks quantum computing will be more efficient than conventional computing
But as the poster you rudely accused of posting nonsense wrote, it's never been demonstrated.
There are legitimate reasons to think it will never happen: Noise, cost scaling of maintaining low entropy space, incompatibility between quantum error correction on qbits and doing logic on those qbits.
I'm a sceptic. I don't expect to see the ECDLP for deployed key sizes solved by quantum computers, ever.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
spending money on Basic Research is perfectly consistent with the Democratic Party's platform.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it's when you research something that's not immediately profitable but might be some day. Most of the time it doesn't pan out and when it does it takes decades. But you wouldn't be typing this on a computer if it didn't sometimes pan out because we wouldn't have microprocessors.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
See here. For an entirely new field of study that touches on particle physics that's not bad. Not everything has to turn a profit right the f now. If we ran things like that it would take centuries to get anything major done, which is exactly what was going on for the first several thousand years of human history.
If we can afford to spend $21 million on a single bomb to drop on Afghanistan to inaugurate President Trump we can spend some money on basic research.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The recipients of the billions in funding will look like a 'who's who' list of congressional donors.
I'm not so bothered about the fact they're bringing two bills to the floor as I am in this question: how will the politicians spin both bills? With the same quantum spin number, or something else?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Hey, better idea: let's allocate billions to mass surveillance, economic wars and derailing 3rd world states instead!
This really isn't accurate. Cold Fusion didn't correspond to how we understood how basic physics worked, and had substantial problems with claims being made that could not be replicated. Quantum computing in contrast has an extremely well-developed theory behind it; the primary issues of getting it to work are engineering, not physics. In that regard, quantum computing is very close to trying to develop practical conventional fusion technology: we're pretty sure in principle it can be done, but the engineering involved is difficult enough that it isn't clear we're going to be able to do it any time soon.
' Increasing Entanglement Between Military and Industrial Complexes'
... will be referred to the new Schrodinger Committee where they can remain both live and dead while unobserved.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, the market was not free during the 1960's. Not for legal goods, anyway.
I cannot think of a time or place where it can be shown that an actual free market existed in concert with some government. There was a free market in parts of the 1860-70's US, but that was because governmental control was absent. Prior to that the indigenous population exerted control over the economies, after that the US government exerted control. There was a period in between, however, when there was essentially no government economic control in large parts of that area. The death toll was high. Fraud was rampant. It was hardly anything ideal.
That said, heavy control over economies can be just as bad. All benefit is in the intermediate situations. The current problem is uneven control favoring those who are rich and powerful. The average degree of control seems pretty reasonable, but average is not what is experienced in any one transaction.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This depends on your precise definition of Quantum Computer. D-Wave sells something that they reasonably call a Quantum Computer, but it's not a general quantum computer. And all their customers have been cagey about how effective it is.
That said, simulated annealing through quantum mechanics is reasonably called quantum computing. (I think I remember that that's what D-Wave claims to do.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Actually, it's not that clear. Certain quantum processes have been applied successfully on reasonably large scale to Quantum Computing, but they aren't (or don't seem) sufficient to build a general quantum computer, but only a specialized variety that can handle some problems well, but can't touch others.
Other techniques have been shown to work in the lab, but getting the error rates under control has been quite a challenge, and nobody has proven that they can do this in a stable fashion.
Even then, for many problems it has not been shown that quantum computers provide any advantage. Perhaps they do, but this will require that new algorithms be developed, and until the computers are actually available, little effort is going to be expended in this direction. And maybe they don't exist. It's also possible that one *can't* get the error rates under control.
So it's possible that quantum computers have only a niche use, and can't really do things like Shor's algorithm in any practical case.
Nobody knows...but it general quantum computers are reasonably realizable, then they'll make current encryption essentially worthless...so there will be an important niche use for them even if no new algorithms get developed...and there's no reason to think they won't be.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress but I repeat myself.
Mark Twain
The free bank era of antebellum comes close. The government was there, but it had been very weak and ineffective.
It is perfectly well known for which tasks quantum computing will be more efficient than conventional computing
False. They're not actually known to be more efficient. Today we can already build a quantum computer in the form of software simulators that stand on top of normal hardware. If quantum computation was truly inherently more efficient ---- then we could just a quantum algorithm rnning on top of the software simulator as our more-efficient implementation.
Quantum computers might turn out not be more efficient at all. Only one limited facets of efficiency is well-known/established; the space and number of basic computation steps, and the reduction in steps.
However; the steps being compared between types of computers are not an apples-to-apples comparison, more like apples and oranges, therefore what is known cannot show that a quantum computer will be as faster or more efficient than has been suggested.
you know that's a good thing, right? Just so we're on the same page it's a good thing.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Google, Microsoft, and Lockheed are all going to have useful quantum computers by next year. This is just the government pretending that they were involved.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If you're going to be competitive on the World Stage with Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, and the like, you're first going to have to solve your education problem.
The country that will win this race has already figured out that they need a highly educated population to get there.
Period.
You don't get there by putting entire generations into debt so deep that they drown in it before their lives even get started.
You don't get there with the piss-poor system we have in place today where only the rich have a realistic chance of getting such an education en masse.
You don't get there when kids don't want to do well in school because they get ostracized for it. It isn't " cool " to be smart these days.
While difficult to do, the US needs to scrap the current model of our education system and go with one that will produce what we're looking for.
Look at what is working in other countries and use their model if need be. Maybe reign in that defense budget a bit. Take the billions you were going to
spend on yet another stealth bomber or aircraft carrier and put it towards something a bit more useful.
( I mean, damn, how many bombers and carriers do we really need ? )
Simply wishing for a thing doesn't get you there. You have to put in a serious effort first.
( Keyword: Serious. Not the shit-show we have today )
Rewards come later.
Congress to take up bill regulating perpetual motion.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Good grief, man, are you schizophrenic? As a free market guy, I at least recognize each of those items for the colossal waste of government spending that they are and for the massive negative consequences that they had. But you often argue against the consequences of those programs, yet simultaneously you still like the spending? Progressives and leftists: "all government spending is good, but crony capitalism and subsidies of things we morally disapprove of are bad!"