Slashdot Mirror
Is Quantum Computing Impossible? (ieee.org)
"Quantum computing is complex and it's not all it's cracked up to be," writes Slashdot reader nickwinlund77, pointing to this new article from IEEE Spectrum arguing it's "not in our foreseeable future":
Having spent decades conducting research in quantum and condensed-matter physics, I've developed my very pessimistic view. It's based on an understanding of the gargantuan technical challenges that would have to be overcome to ever make quantum computing work.... Experts estimate that the number of qubits needed for a useful quantum computer, one that could compete with your laptop in solving certain kinds of interesting problems, is between 1,000 and 100,000. So the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful quantum computer at any given moment must be at least 2**1,000, which is to say about 10**300. That's a very big number indeed. How big? It is much, much greater than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe. To repeat: A useful quantum computer needs to process a set of continuous parameters that is larger than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe. At this point in a description of a possible future technology, a hardheaded engineer loses interest....
[I]t's absolutely unimaginable how to keep errors under control for the 10300 continuous parameters that must be processed by a useful quantum computer. Yet quantum-computing theorists have succeeded in convincing the general public that this is feasible.... Even without considering these impossibly large numbers, it's sobering that no one has yet figured out how to combine many physical qubits into a smaller number of logical qubits that can compute something useful. And it's not like this hasn't long been a key goal.... On the hardware front, advanced research is under way, with a 49-qubit chip (Intel), a 50-qubit chip (IBM), and a 72-qubit chip (Google) having recently been fabricated and studied. The eventual outcome of this activity is not entirely clear, especially because these companies have not revealed the details of their work...
I believe that, appearances to the contrary, the quantum computing fervor is nearing its end. That's because a few decades is the maximum lifetime of any big bubble in technology or science. After a certain period, too many unfulfilled promises have been made, and anyone who has been following the topic starts to get annoyed by further announcements of impending breakthroughs. What's more, by that time all the tenured faculty positions in the field are already occupied. The proponents have grown older and less zealous, while the younger generation seeks something completely new and more likely to succeed.
He advises quantum computing researchers to follow the advice of IBM physicist Rolf Landauer. Decades ago Landauer warned quantum computing's proponents that they needed a disclaimer in all of their publications.
"This scheme, like all other schemes for quantum computation, relies on speculative technology, does not in its current form take into account all possible sources of noise, unreliability and manufacturing error, and probably will not work."
[I]t's absolutely unimaginable how to keep errors under control for the 10300 continuous parameters that must be processed by a useful quantum computer. Yet quantum-computing theorists have succeeded in convincing the general public that this is feasible.... Even without considering these impossibly large numbers, it's sobering that no one has yet figured out how to combine many physical qubits into a smaller number of logical qubits that can compute something useful. And it's not like this hasn't long been a key goal.... On the hardware front, advanced research is under way, with a 49-qubit chip (Intel), a 50-qubit chip (IBM), and a 72-qubit chip (Google) having recently been fabricated and studied. The eventual outcome of this activity is not entirely clear, especially because these companies have not revealed the details of their work...
I believe that, appearances to the contrary, the quantum computing fervor is nearing its end. That's because a few decades is the maximum lifetime of any big bubble in technology or science. After a certain period, too many unfulfilled promises have been made, and anyone who has been following the topic starts to get annoyed by further announcements of impending breakthroughs. What's more, by that time all the tenured faculty positions in the field are already occupied. The proponents have grown older and less zealous, while the younger generation seeks something completely new and more likely to succeed.
He advises quantum computing researchers to follow the advice of IBM physicist Rolf Landauer. Decades ago Landauer warned quantum computing's proponents that they needed a disclaimer in all of their publications.
"This scheme, like all other schemes for quantum computation, relies on speculative technology, does not in its current form take into account all possible sources of noise, unreliability and manufacturing error, and probably will not work."
Yes.
Quantum computing is simultaneously both possible and impossible.
I can't be the only one here that goes to look for a bug that vanishes when I am doing any kind of problem.
Now THAT is Quantum Computing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I started a graduate EE program in 2000 in a quantum computing & quantum information program. By 2001 I pivoted to quantum cryptography. Upon graduating in 2005 I pivoted again to broader infosec. The intellectual puzzles were challenging and made me a resourceful engineer, but I saw little practical value in the narrow pursuits.
A useful quantum computer needs to process a set of continuous parameters that is larger than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe
I thought that the whole point of quantum computers was that there's no need to describe or process all possible states. And that the difficulty of practical quantum computers is that the qubits need to "work together": you can't just make 1 cubit, then make 1023 more and build yourself a 1024 cubit computer.
The guy obviously knows way more about quantum computers than I do. But I've never seen the difficulties of quantum computing described in this manner.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
And has been for about 2 decades or so. Even if the physical universe supports it (and that is a big if, given the exactness required and the problem of noise), it may well be impossible to build a QC of meaningful size. It does look now very much that it is either infeasible or far, far in the future (i.e. >100 years and possibly much more).
And to all you attack dogs that cannot bear having your dreams criticized: I am not opposed to QC in any way. I just do not see it happening.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The author makes a great point about the near impossibility of perfect, error-free quantum computation.
But this has been realized a few years back by most quantum algorithm developers, too.
Many recent algorithms assume that the quantum computation will be partially faulty.
And they work around it.
Yes, that makes these algorithms harder to design and they are less efficient compared to the ones assuming no errors, but they still seem to provide a way forward.
I would definitely not write off quantum computing yet.
So you're saying the theoretical computer that can solve impossible problems is itself impossible?
you don't have to make a q computer to replace regular computers. you don't need a q computer to use ms word. classic computers are already great at what they do. you only need q computers to do what they do well that classical computers can't - namely encryption/decryption duties. and it seems that for such purposes, lesser bits than all the particles in the observable universe will do.
We'll know when the wave equation collapses.
In my experiments the quantum computer ran until the cat reached a terminal state.
Either way the goal of wasting a lot of Chinese resources was achieved very early in the process.
"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"
... because of it being such a subjective topic. Hint: you have one built in.
So the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful quantum computer at any given moment must be at least 2**1,000, which is to say about 10**300. That's a very big number indeed. How big? It is much, much greater than the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe.
I am struggling to come up with some way that this part makes any sense at all. It sounds like the kind of thing someone who is definitely not an expert the area would say. He is expressing the number of possible configurations of 1,000 qubits but that is only something you care about if you are simulating a quantum computer with a classical one. The whole point of quantum computers is that you don't have to do that.
Also a simple counterexample to this sentiment is given later on, when mentioning that Google already has a 72-qubit computer. Just storing the states of a 72-qubit machine would be substantially more than the entire capacity of the internet, implying that since we somehow did it then enumerating all the states is not necessary.
No
would companies be making quantum processors? see ibm, intel, google
Is some douchebag VC hoping to unload some shitty QC startup before the latest bubble completely pops? Quantum shit has been getting shilled unusually hard lately.
I'm pretty sure that the CIA and friends would pay all of the money (*all of it*) to have a box that could crack public key encryption. How feasible is this? Is it on the horizon, or one of those things (like practical fusion) that always will be?
You never know if the quantum computer will be able to solve the problem until you try. Then, it will either work or it won't.
I think it is waste of time and money, with errors in quantum computing, this is like making an analogue computer to work.
We should focus of using the light as a signal with proper switches and keep the computers digital/binary.
If this was the year 1988, then this attempt to stop quantum computer R&D, (just maybe!), could have a (tiny!) chance!!! :-)
This is like someone (an "expert") looks at the first mechanical computer designs/attempts, & says/declares "computers are completely impossible/impractical, so stop working on them people"!!!
History full of records of "experts" declaring many things impossible but we know otherwise today!!!
I tend to be skeptical about things like QC because we have heard so many hyped up stories over the years. Cold fusion, fusion generators, room-temperature super-conduction, 100 mpg engines, etc. are just a few examples. That does even begin to address things like WinFS, the decentralized web, mainstream crypto-currencies, or 100 TB hard drives that were supposed to be here by now. But plenty of breakthrough technologies have come about in spite of all the skepticism around them (I am working on one of my own), so I try not to be too skeptical. Let's give it a few years and reserve judgement until we see tangible evidence. Just don't throw a lot of money at it (bitcoin, cough, cough) until you see some.
The number of continuous variables is not 2 to the 1000 power, but rather 2 times 1000 or 2000 continuous variables. The number of possible states those cubits can have depend on the level of noise, less noise means more states.
...until I looked into the matter.
my clients/employers would ever have any kind access to/make use of. I don't know why any employee/contractor would accept that as a terms of employment
;)
As for implants for my defective eyes and/or other senses, computer interfacing, nervous system interfacing I would definitely consider it when it looks advantageous and useful.
But in reality I am probably to old (63) to get there.
Just my 2 cents
I remember it was all the rage a few decades.
Perhaps writing the code in this way would help with the problem suggested in this article. Whats the name of that language again? lol
[($)]
The state of quantum physics is poor. (As in the experts saying nobody understands it.)
Hopefully, even if it doesn't work, the quest for QC will find some more understanding for the underlying physics.
If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong. -- Arthus C. Clarke
conventional computing: results = logic(question, algorithm).
quantum computing: algorithm = quantum(question, results).
combined computing: results' = logic(question', quantum(question, results)
quantum => number of qbits needed to describe the algorithm.
1000 qubits have 2^1000 possible states, yes. That does not mean you need 2^1000 parameters to describe them. 1000 will do.
By the argument in this article, electronic computers with 1Kb of RAM are impossible.
Wait, wait! Don't forget "nano technology"! That was going to be the next big thing in the early 2000s before Steve Jobs created the iPhone and everyone realized mobile was actually the next big thing. The fact that there is so much hype for quantum right now just shows no one really knows what the next big thing will be so the hype-void is being filled with snake oil quacks.
Makes since, lots of money at stake and they only have ~5 years before quantum computers destroy their pump & dump campaign, gotta keep the suckers buying shitcoins.
Much like self-driving cars are? Just a bunch of hype and fake data, but not in the least practical due to severe limitations?
This reminds me of a publication in the mid 90's about the impossibility of creating cell phones that would transmit data while moving at fast speeds. Something about shooting a follicle of hair moving at 300 mph with a toothpick and some outrageously large ratio of difficulty... Now look, almost every man, woman and child in the developed worlds has one. Some businesses even say it's almost ready for prime time:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90232670/quantum-computing-is-almost-ready-for-business-startup-says
Imagine it is 1948, and you want to create a computer with a processor that has a million components. Someone would have told you, "That's impossible; you would have vacuum tubes burning out every few seconds."
Quantum computing today is in a similar situation: we can build qubits, but we can't have a lot of them working together without decohering in short order. We need to find a better way to build qubits. Maybe that's possible and maybe it isn't, but absent a convincing proof of impossibility, it's worth trying.
It just comes down to Cost vs Benefit vs bragging rights e.g. Fusion power while there are cheaper energy sources it is no rush to make fusion power except bragging rights at the moment same goes with Quantum computing if the benefit could be defined as giving a nation a really good advantage it would have lots of money thrown at it which would then attract more people to work on it
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
... i want to know when the Positronic Brain will be perfected!
The author makes a significant error which falsies his entire line of reasoning. The number of continuous variables in a 1000 qubit register is 2000, not 2^1000. Furthermore, the least technically difficult application of a qubit is to create an ALU operating on two qubit based registers. In that system the only entanglement is between the two electrons in a cubit, something that has been accomplished. The number of discrete states which can be held by each qubit depends on how noise free the system is, which is where much focus is at now. The advantage of this system over a conventional computer is that only a small number of qubits are needed to store the integer values of a 1000 bit conventional register. As a consequence, factorization of the large primes in a 1000 bit encryption key can be accomplished more efficiently. Presently, you need a BigNum like representation in conventional computers, which is primarily a software process. The real value of a qubit ALU is more aparent in factorization of the 2048 and 4096 bit keys of RSA or other public key encryption systems. The integer value represented by a 4096 bit key requires 64 registers on a 64-bit machine. Most 64 bit machines do not have 64 registers available for extended mathematical operations and so most of the work must be accomplished in software, and as a consequence it is very slow.
Is this guy shorting quantum-computing firms? Or perhaps looking to buy stocks for such firms at reduced prices? I'm kidding!
But, consider the history of other fields of research which began with excitement about the prospect of implementing a basic (but great) theory/idea, followed by decades of struggling to actually implement, followed by a sudden surge of progress when other (possibly unanticipated) technologies arise to help finish an implementation.
When the simple neuron-inspired "perceptron" model was first proposed and studied, there was a lot of excitement about its potential to enable computers to eventually recognize patterns with the same incredible ability as humans, and perhaps even "think"!
But, then... (From the Wikipedia article for "Marvin Minsky")
"Minsky wrote the book Perceptrons (with Seymour Papert), which became the foundational work in the analysis of artificial neural networks. This book is the center of a controversy in the history of AI, as some claim it to have had great importance in discouraging research of neural networks in the 1970s, and contributing to the so-called "AI winter".[24]"
However, the pessimistic forecast of that book was based on the limited vision of its authors (which is ironic, considering that they used the example of limited vision of individual perceptrons to demonstrate their seeming inability to find solutions requiring a wider total perspective).
It took other technological advances (e.g., miniaturization of circuitry, development of massively-parallel processors) to finally realize wide practical application (and open up exponential advancement of the field through the use of these high-performance implementations as virtual laboratories).
Sure, some ideas for technologies based on physical principles might be very difficult to implement. But, the notion that we will not eventually find a way to use quantum mechanical dynamics more directly for calculation seems very shortsighted and silly.
Maybe current ideas about the structure of physical objects which will encode and process information quantum mechanically is not quite on the right track -- but the efforts to create these processors will definitely contribute to the knowledge base needed to do things a better way.
I call this BS. A serious scientist would not use this misleading language to assert what can at best be defined a personal opinion. This article seems to be written for the dumbs and is nonsense on so many levels.
Just to clarify: "the number of continuous parameters describing the state of such a useful quantum computer at any given moment must be at least 2**1,000". So what? A classical computer with 1000 bits needs also to be described with 2**1000 parameters. Granted they are not *continuous* parameters, but why should this be a problem? It only matters because classical computers are a kind of hardware which can only process one discrete state at a time. The idea with QC is that the hardware itself does it differently. So OP is comparing apples VS oranges.
Moreover, those parameters need not to be "continuous". For any practical implementation of QC, a discrete (but high enough) accuracy is sufficient.
Finally, last time I checked, the general consensus amongst physicists was that the threshold at which it should be possible to witness "quantum supremacy" (i.e., to have a quantum computer which might not break your RSA keys, but is still interesting for solving certain optimization and chemistry problems) is more on the order of 90-100 qubits, not 1000. Given that the current (claimed) record is Bristlecone's 72 qubits, we are really, really close to see something interesting.
Or maybe this will never happen. Maybe there are intrinsic physical limitations which make building a QC impossible. If you could prove this, Scott Aaronson has promised to give you 100k USD, and he's no crackpot.
Nah, the only reason why we don't have quantum computers yet it's because it's engineering-level hard to build them. As it is with all new tech, and as it was for most of the tech we use today. But to say "QC with 1000 qubits will never be feasible" is like being in 1907 and saying "ah, this vacuum tube you invented is interesting, but computers with 1000 bits of memory will be impossible anyway".
Source: I'm a scientist and researcher in quantum cryptography. But posting as AC so doesn't matter.
This time I'll use analogy, so you Slashdot regulars might finally get it.
Let's say you are interested in FLUID DYNAMICS- in this case what happens to water in a clear 'fish tank' when you move the tank creating 'waves'.
Method ONE- use a trad computer running a trad sim you hope is realively accurate.
Method TWO (the 'Quantum Computer' analogy)- build a REAL fishtank with REAL water, and control the parameters (size of tank, amount of water, nature of tank movement) and FILM the results. Feed the filmed results back into the traditional computer. Call this 'magic' and look for suckers to inest billions into your con.
Ah, you say- but this 'Quantum Computer' may 'calculate' realistic water motion, but what about calculations NOT about water motion. Ah, say the 'quantum computer' conmen- simples. Find a generalised equation for the water motion, whose 'INPUT' parameters are the physical ones mentioned above. 'Solve' this equation by doing the 'simulation' for REAL- then find a way to use this very specialised piece of maths in any particular algorithm.
Like, for instance, we have a magic machine that does 128-bit floating point division VERY quickly. So now we just need to make FP divisions the TIME-DEPENDENT heart of any other calculation or algorithm. An obvious nonsense even for something as basic as division- but an INFINITE nonsense for the classic wave collapse quantum calculation current quantum computers claim to 'calculate'.
Most of you dribblers won't believe a word I wrote above, in the same way one can NEVER convince an idiot in the midst of falling for yet another pyramid scam by explaining the principle of the scam. You 'think' that accepting the 'reality' of Quantum Computing somehow makes you 'clever', just like the scammed idiot rushing around to borrow money to stick in that 'amazing, time limited investment'.
What I have described by analogy is EXACTLY how current 'quantum computers' work- BUT unlike the wave box, setting up the initial parameters for the quantum computer and then reading the result doesn't work. And it wouldn't matter if it did- but even the first stage of the con doesn't work as sold.
The SAME people selling this con are the SAME people maiming tens of thousands of protestors in Gaza with sniper fire - sick sadistic criminals that are proud to be members of Humanity's worst power/death cult. Only a few days back, the cream of Hollywood was proudly raising money for these satanic snipers, howling with laughter at images of every amputee in Gaza.
The infamous 'Murder Hotel/Castle" serial killer was a TECH CONMAN as well. He successfully sold cons like 'Quantum Computing' to suckers back in the 19th century, and then would murder children and young women, later selling their skeletons to 'legitimate' medical supply outlets.
The big tribe-controlled tech giants all work in sync to help bring about genocidal war in Iran- the current big boss of the tribe proudly boasting that HE was the one that got Trump to renage on the nuke treaty with Iran. Slashdot demonises Iran whenever it thinks it can to the same purpose.
Tech cons and genocidal killers. Yet their evil acts and evil intents have never existed in plainer sight.
WT actual F is going on in the comments section right now?! In the last few days I've had to raise my filter from -1 up to 1, and the quality of discussion is still basically trash. The apk impersonator spam in first doesn't help, but even that's just the tip of the iceberg.
If ever there were a potential application for quantum computing, I'd say that's it's in /. moderation!
Maybe I should actually log in for a change and accrue some mod points to tackle this.
is another AI winter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Great for getting all possible mil and gov funding.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Then a Quantum Blockchain Coin. Or Quantum VR. Or Quantum NOSQL databases. C'mon people, think out of your comfy Einstein inspired box! OK, not really. Fusion reactors. Self driving cars. Quantum computing. Sometimes the last 10% or 5% or 1% of development is where the rubber doesn't always meet the road and the whole thing, no matter how promising/life changing/world saving (pick any two) finally just doesn't work in the real world with real world requirements and expectations.
Like other useless tech like 3D Printers, Quantum Computers be repackaged as toys for Makers in the next decade. Come to a workshop at our Makerspace to learn how to leverage the power of quantum computing to do addition and subtraction of big ass numbers on your Quantum Arduino! Quantum kits will be available for $49.99, or order yours online today!
By his logic... my very first computer was an RCA VIP, it came with a whopping 2K of RAM. That's a measly 16384 bits - not counting internal registers, flags, etc.So to actually model all the possible internal states of just the RAM is 2^16384 which is roughly 10^500. I'm sure you know how the rest of the argument goes.
A thousand qubits is simply 1000 mutually interacting particles. You're not trying to represent every possible state (and as the possible states are infinite, you couldn't). His argument is complete nonsense and tells you nothing at all.
Dyakonov theoretically predicted a new class of surface electromagnetic waves, now called Dyakonov surface waves.
for me to shit in
Quantum physics is always teasing us with almosts: almost instantaneous communication, almost energy out of nowhere, almost backward time travel, etc.
After all these teases, I'd bet on quantum computing having an inherent flaw nobody has discovered yet.
Schrodinger Lucy is holding the football again...
Table-ized A.I.
256 QBit should be enough for anybody
There is certainly a high potential for application of quantum annealing in japanese secondary education. In other words:
Kimi no Sei, kimi no sei, kimi no sei kimi no sei de watashi, uwu...
Quantum computer is more like a test tube than a computer. In the sense that the best way to find out how a chemical reaction will run is to do it in a test tube, instead of trying to simulate in on a classical computer. Quantum computer is just more generic than that and you can reduce wider range of problems down to quantum algorithms.
A writer of fiction's opinion on cutting edge scientist is as good as the scientist's fiction writing skills.
Expertise is non-transferable.
Are around the 50 to 70 year mark to solve realistic prime divisor problems.
From what I have seen general purpose quantum computing is not coming any time soon.
Don't forget, you still need a normal computer to control the damn thing, and read out and process the results.
Some good layout patterns have been found for single qu-bit error correction, but as far as I know, none have yet been found for generalized multi q-bit layout.
THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
you always make my day. it's always nice to see someone out there has even less of a grip on reality than i do. thank you, i feel that much less retarded with you near me.
They gave up trying to make the Field Effect Transistor in the '30s until the right technology came along...
I think this article really overestimates the drive for quantum computing on a grand scale, and I don't think it was ever sold to use by the experts as something that we would actually see in "the foreseeable future". As such, that makes the author's premise disingenuous.
I always assumed we'd have optical computers long, LONG before a general-purpose quantum computer, and I don't think it's unreasonable to stand by that statement. That said, I don't think that warrants slowing down any resaerch towards quantum computers, no matter how daunting the scope.
Let's compare quantum computing to nuclear fusion: I doubt I'll see sustainable, controlled fusion in my lifetime. That doesn't negate the investment of billions upon billions of dollars into it, nor should it, but fusion's just as "foreseeable" as quantum computers.
This is just like when Marvin Minsky wrote Perceptrons and discouraged research on neural nets for over a decade.
To my understanding these are the core arguments of the article:
1) The feasibility of quantum computing is based on the assumption, that the effort (e.g. for error correction) scales with the number of qbits (in the example 1000), not the dimension of the superimposable state vector (2^1000). According to the author it is not yet proven that that is the case.
2) For a useful quantum computer it must be possible to manipulate qbits (with quantum gates) at will, i.e. move them around and "process" them like we do with classical bits in a classical computer nowadays.
3) In theoretical concepts of quantum computers perfect quantum gates are assumed, but quantum gates are physical devices. Rotating a spin by 90 deg might be achieved by applying a magnetic field of a given strength for a precise length of time. But in the physical world the precision of such manipulations is always finite, so maybe the result is somewhere between an 89 and 91 deg rotation and the axis might be slightly off too. Such imprecision might even occur when storing or transferring qbits (the information) in/between their physical storage. In lengthier calculations such errors add up, a bit like in analog computers. That would (severely?) limit the usefulness of quantum computers.
This is very unlike classical logical gates where anything above a certain voltage is interpreted as "1", anything below as "0" and logical gates consist of voltage controlled switches (transistors) in either "on" or "off" state that is clearly defined and leaves a wide error margin in terms of voltage.
To summarize: The physical world is far messier than the theoretical concepts of quantum computing and it has yet to be shown, that error correction mechanisms to control that "messiness" are feasible.
These problems are not new, and AFAIK there are theoretical as well as experimental efforts made to counter them. The article presents a very disillusioned view of the advances in that respect and suggests that it might be even impossible to overcome the problems. Sadly, instead of making the points by giving examples of the efforts and the advances or non-advances that were made, a lot of space in the article is simply wasted by pointless comparisons of the number of superimposable quantum states to the number of particles in the universe and the like. The question is not how big that number is but if it really represents the size of the obstacle/necessary effort on the way to quantum computing.
OTOH it should be noted, that even the theoretical concepts of quantum computing, i.e. quantum information theory, broadened our understanding of quantum mechanics. E.g. experiments on entangled states like EPR, delayed quantum eraser or "quantum teleportation" (which should really be named "quantum state teleportation") can be viewed from a new perspective.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015
I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015
that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015
I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017
* Want more ? Ask & "ye shall receive"!
APK
P.S.=> I've DOZENS of registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work & 100,000++ users... apk
See subject & e.g. 'case in point' PROOF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... especially vs. ZIP the BLOWHARD fool https://linux.slashdot.org/com... w/ nothing REAL or APPLICABLE out there he can demonstrate.
* That is what KILLS you LAZY do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-wells" vs. me IN THE EYES OF OTHERS per proof https://science.slashdot.org/c... & you KNOW it... lol!
(& like the REAL tiger? It appears MY KIND producing tools of value + actual REAL WORLD RESULTS is a DYING BREED being replaced by ZEROS!)
APK
P.S.=> ... & THAT is YOUR FAULT that YOU are a "CRYberian" (lol) PUSSY (no WAY punks like you = tigers), not mine... apk
gweihir KNOWS you IMPERSONATE me https://it.slashdot.org/commen... c6gunner proves it https://linux.slashdot.org/com... forgetting to SUBMIT BY AC & f'd up using his registered 'lusrname' instead (just because he tried to mock me both BEFORE & after I FAIRLY challenged him to show he's done better work - he had ZERO).
YOU EVEN HELPED ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... (& you quit trying to make me look bad by trying to "tell lies" on hosts as "ME" IN YOUR IMPERSONATIONS of me e.g. https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & regarding Intel speculative execution attacks? Guess what?? Hosts DO PREVENT THEM)
APK
P.S.=> LMAO - I totally KNOW that 3rd/2nd to last link above's KILLING YOU that YOU ACTUALLY HELPED ME getting me to see if hosts stop more than portsmash (& Meltdown + Spectre too) & "lo & behold" - hosts WORK by stopping you being INFESTED by what uses them on you - YOU LOSE (& YOU STOPPED TRYING THAT in your impersonations of me, lol) .... apk
About time we heard some sense instead of constant cheerleading. Just because scientists and engineers say something is doable and should be done, it doesn't mean there is any reality to the thing. Let's hear more actual opposition based on real science and math to easy plans and projects . I'm sick of hearing breathless pie-in-the-sky schemes that are given the imprimatur of science and tech that are just manipulations for money, position, or fame.
E Proelio Veritas.
Appeal to Authority is an informal logical fallacy.
Clarke was a scientist as well as an author, you should read his opinions again.
>> a few decades is the maximum lifetime of any big bubble in technology or science
Depends on the promise. Power by fusion comes to mind. How many decades? How many promises? And yet we're still going..
So it is not as easy as those ass hats in Personel implied. Get back to work.
I hate it when my cat thinks outside of the box!
QC may be impossible (we won't know if we don't try), but for sure not for the misconceived reasons stated in the OP.
* The point in QC is that to control 2^300 states you need to control 300 qubits, and for Quantum error correcting sequences
* People started to think about quantum error correction about 2 decades ago, and have come great lengths in reducing the overhead since then
* The big question is not if it is technologically feasible (would be in latest 20 years from now), but if highly entangled Quantum systems actually behave like we imagine they do (zero guarantee for that)
The ultimate consequence of this quote always seems to me that everything is very probably possible.
Maybe
What is quantum computing? if it's statistical calculations yes, it is.
If is atomic nano particles thingies.... no, i highly doubt it.
While normally I might like the "Expertise is non-transferable" argument, in this case you are wrong. Clarke's record speaks for itself. None of us here, not you, not me, probably no one on /. right now, has a CV that comes close to Clarke's.
I'd also point out that Clarke's entire artistic output as a SciFi author was hard SciFi. He wasn't writing alternative fiction about dragons, wizards, orcs and flibbertigibbets. Clarke specialized in taking known science and speculating on where that could take us.
Clarke predicted satellites. What have you predicted that came true, besides breakfast this morning?
So yeah, Clarke's opinion on scientists is relevant, on-point and accurate.