Ribbon cables with very thin copper traces to limit heat input have been developed by Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Ore., IBM Corp.'s Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and others, under a program managed by the U.S. National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Md.
It's not surprising that the NSA would be interested in this technology, but I do find it striking that there's such a blatant connection. If I was to guess, I'd say they're probably way ahead of industry and academia on this one. After all, what's the rush to have a supplier of those cables, if labs would eventually have to develop them on their own anyway once the state of their technology required it?
This is slightly offtopic, but I'm curious about something. The other day, I went to ESPN's website and noticed that I got redirected to espn.go.com. Now unless I'm wrong, ESPN is owned and operated by Ted Turner's company, and Ted is heavily involved with AOL/Time-Warner. Go.com, on the otherhand, is owned by Disney. Does anyone else find it odd that these two monopolistic companies would be working together?
Does anyone else find it interesting that Intel is making all these announcements right before they release their prospective earnings report? Just a thought.
NASA didn't spend any time or energy developing a "space pen." They used pencils in the beginning too until Fisher (which still sells them) volunteered to develop a pressurized pen for free. Ever since, Cosmonauts have used those pens as well, by the way.
Actually, I really think it's just as likely that Russia's becoming an accomplice to our folly. They've had a lot of experience with the very successfuly MIR program; we haven't.
It strikes me as bizarre, given how often people talk about the public lack of interest in space that everything related to NASA is considered important enough to report."
I think this is because a lot of the people interested in space are really interested in space. CNN can put their 50-odd stories up on the website, and they know that people will generally pick and choose and hopefully read a few stories. With things having to do with space, however, there are plenty of folks who want to know every detail everytime something happens (myself included). It's a very focused audience, and a given news agency can nab all of it just by putting minimal effort into running a story based mostly on a NASA press release.
According to Intel, the EPIC architecture was designed with about 25 years of headroom for future development in mind (from the article).
I know that the 8086 architecture has been around for about 20 years now, but I find it very unlikely that any sort of architecture could last that long in the future. CMOS technology (and perhaps Moore's law with it) will hit a roadblock long before then, and I would hope that we'd be moving to fundamentally different technology by then (eg. molecular computing, etc.).
Besides, I don't know how anyone can claim to be planning 25 years ahead in the computer industry. When they were designing the 8086, they probably weren't saying "well, this should take us into the next millenium." Instead, they put together a chip that would run as well as possible based on the technology available at the time. The situation is no different with Itanium, and claims to the contrary are just silly.
It's not "now" called chording. It's always been called chording since it was invented by the folks at XeroxPARC, about the same time they first developed the mouse (not later than the early 1970's, I think).
The "Relativistic" in relativistic quantum mechanics refers to special relativity, and it's been there since the 1920's (starting with the work of Sommerfeld, then Dirac). What this novel is surely talking about is General Relativity, which no one is even close to unifying with the Standard Model.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Computer Associates has had a product for years that does the same thing. I can't remember the name, but it just used SNMP info. to construct maps in either 2 or 3D (using an accelerator).
I think that there's another complementary danger involved with the.kids TLD. Imagine if.kids was reasonably well policed and turned out to be fairly safe for kids. That would be great, but I think we'd start to see all the net nanny-like programs including optional blocks for all sites except those ending in.kids. Before you know it, bureaucrats will be praising the new "safe" highly censored internet. In time, even high school libraries will be blocking students from accessing those pesky.com sites.
The electoral college is not "sadly unbalanced." It is purposely unbalanced for a reason. Do you really want a president who won by campaigning in only a handful of big cities and ignoring the entire midwest and half of New England? I personally don't, and I live in one of those big cities.
Fortunately, we probably don't have to worry about a moronic ammendment to the constitution, because it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and the smaller states would (rightly so) vote it down.
I disagree. Slashdot is "News for Nerds," not discussion for nerds. It usually happens that a good story will generate interesting discussion, but not always. I think that this is certainly a newsworthy story, and it is after all a story, not a "topic" as one comment called it. There are plenty of other things to discuss, and the obsessive-compulsive posters shouldn't get in a huff when a given story happens to produce less than 200 comments.
For anyone who wants to know what the EPR "paradox" is, or any other basic information concerning quantum encryption, I suggest you check out the comments to one of the past articles on quantum computing or quantum encryption, such as this one.
Otherwise, we'll have the usual ten people making misinformed comments being responded to by the usual ten karma whores writing the usual ten paragraph responses on "spooky action at a distance" and the Schrodinger Cat paradox.
Or better yet, pick up a good book on the subject.
"Also keep in mind that with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, you should see even MORE spending cuts than we saw in the past 8 years with Mr. Veto."
Personally, I think the only reason we've had prosperity these last few years is because the democrat president and republican congress have been to busy disagreeing with eachother to screw anything up. My only hope for this election is that we don't see one party win both the presidency and congress.
"Real physicist" was a poor choice of words, I admit, but I still don't think that he should bring up the fact that he's a physicist all the time in connection with his political theory. The link to his papers is bad, by the way.
No, not all physicists do particle physics, but almost all physicists use quantum mechanics, regardless of their specific field. The only exceptions might be a certain number of astrophysicists. Besides, if Hagelin meant to say that he's an elementary particle physicist, he would have just said it. He says "quantum physicist" because it sounds cool. This isn't a major point; I'm just saying that I can't imagine myself or anyone walking around the physics department saying they're a "quantum physicist." You might say you're elementary particle or high-energy, or a theorist who specializes in some quantum theory, but not a quantum physicist.
If it was feasable, the gold in the electronics would be even more attractive. Unfortunately, it isn't. Studies have been done. It costs several times the worth of the metals to try to extract them.
"As a quantum physicist, I offer a profound and fresh new foundation for governmental administration -- one based upon the most modern and comprehensive scientific understanding of how Nature functions -- that will clarify and redefine our national mission. Unified quantum field theories have revealed the ultimate unity underlying all of life, and provide deep and practical insights into how to skillfully administer and harmonize society's diverse tendencies -- with the same organizing intelligence displayed throughout Nature..."
First of all, a real physicist wouldn't call himself a "quantum physicist." All physicists use quantum mechanics. It's like saying "I'm a space astronomer" or "I'm a life biologist." The fact that he's using a popular term like quantum physicist proves he's trying to court votes by saying "I'm really smart. If I can do quantum physics, I certainly can do this politics stuff."
Secondly, modern physics provides absolutely no insight into how to run a society. A physics degree doesn't qualify someone to fix my car. It doesn't even qualify him to be a chemist because he understands the physics on which chemistry is based. And it certainly doesn't qualify him to be a politician because he understands the physics on which chemistry on which biology on which psychology on which sociology on which politics might somehow be based. If he believes in some sort of deep interconnectedness, he should refer to it as the new age mysticism it is rather than science. And in either case, he shouldn't bother bringing it up.
Why do these articles keep getting posted to the front page? We've probably had about 4 or 5 in the last few days, each retracting parts of the earlier ones. Some people might be interested in the latest misinformation concerning the sega saga, but post it directly into the game section. Then maybe you wouldn't get 900 "this article sucks" posts.
When people aren't confusing quantum computing with quantum cryptography, they're busy confusing the purposes of the two. Quantum cryptography (of which the above is a reasonably accurate description) is handy method of realtime authentication between two parties. Despite it's name, however, it is not in the most general sense encryption. In real life, people need to encrypt files. They need to be able to leave them on their hard drive in a secure form. They need to send them multiple times to various people. They need to have the capability to use public and private keys and an existing infrastructure (the internet). Quantum cryptography will be useful for a very small handful of organizations who can afford dedicated connections (and who will need other means to secure data once it's been sent). It is in no way a replacement for encryption.
I'm not an expert, but if and when quantum computing becomes feasable, I see no way that encryption could exist in the way it does today. At best, individuals will have to rely on security through obscurity, creating complicated algorithms using proprietary (quantum) hardware that would be prohibitively expensive for another party to reverse engineer. Or maybe someone will come up with something really new that doesn't rely on quantum-computable math. In any case, the age of PGP and the like will be over.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
Ribbon cables with very thin copper traces to limit heat input have been developed by Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Ore., IBM Corp.'s Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., and others, under a program managed by the U.S. National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Md.
It's not surprising that the NSA would be interested in this technology, but I do find it striking that there's such a blatant connection. If I was to guess, I'd say they're probably way ahead of industry and academia on this one. After all, what's the rush to have a supplier of those cables, if labs would eventually have to develop them on their own anyway once the state of their technology required it?
This is slightly offtopic, but I'm curious about something. The other day, I went to ESPN's website and noticed that I got redirected to espn.go.com. Now unless I'm wrong, ESPN is owned and operated by Ted Turner's company, and Ted is heavily involved with AOL/Time-Warner. Go.com, on the otherhand, is owned by Disney. Does anyone else find it odd that these two monopolistic companies would be working together?
I find it amusing that your signature is a witty quip from German-born Albert Einstein.
Nevermind... This one is from IBM, not Intel, and I'm on crack. darn blue logos.
Does anyone else find it interesting that Intel is making all these announcements right before they release their prospective earnings report? Just a thought.
NASA didn't spend any time or energy developing a "space pen." They used pencils in the beginning too until Fisher (which still sells them) volunteered to develop a pressurized pen for free. Ever since, Cosmonauts have used those pens as well, by the way.
Actually, I really think it's just as likely that Russia's becoming an accomplice to our folly. They've had a lot of experience with the very successfuly MIR program; we haven't.
It strikes me as bizarre, given how often people talk about the public lack of interest in space that everything related to NASA is considered important enough to report."
I think this is because a lot of the people interested in space are really interested in space. CNN can put their 50-odd stories up on the website, and they know that people will generally pick and choose and hopefully read a few stories. With things having to do with space, however, there are plenty of folks who want to know every detail everytime something happens (myself included). It's a very focused audience, and a given news agency can nab all of it just by putting minimal effort into running a story based mostly on a NASA press release.
According to Intel, the EPIC architecture was designed with about 25 years of headroom for future development in mind (from the article).
I know that the 8086 architecture has been around for about 20 years now, but I find it very unlikely that any sort of architecture could last that long in the future. CMOS technology (and perhaps Moore's law with it) will hit a roadblock long before then, and I would hope that we'd be moving to fundamentally different technology by then (eg. molecular computing, etc.).
Besides, I don't know how anyone can claim to be planning 25 years ahead in the computer industry. When they were designing the 8086, they probably weren't saying "well, this should take us into the next millenium." Instead, they put together a chip that would run as well as possible based on the technology available at the time. The situation is no different with Itanium, and claims to the contrary are just silly.
It's not "now" called chording. It's always been called chording since it was invented by the folks at XeroxPARC, about the same time they first developed the mouse (not later than the early 1970's, I think).
The "Relativistic" in relativistic quantum mechanics refers to special relativity, and it's been there since the 1920's (starting with the work of Sommerfeld, then Dirac). What this novel is surely talking about is General Relativity, which no one is even close to unifying with the Standard Model.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Computer Associates has had a product for years that does the same thing. I can't remember the name, but it just used SNMP info. to construct maps in either 2 or 3D (using an accelerator).
Um, I could be wrong, but I really think they're named after WWII-era fighter planes, not cars.
I think that there's another complementary danger involved with the .kids TLD. Imagine if .kids was reasonably well policed and turned out to be fairly safe for kids. That would be great, but I think we'd start to see all the net nanny-like programs including optional blocks for all sites except those ending in .kids. Before you know it, bureaucrats will be praising the new "safe" highly censored internet. In time, even high school libraries will be blocking students from accessing those pesky .com sites.
Kidding, of course, but we could use someone who has a handle on issues like this.
The electoral college is not "sadly unbalanced." It is purposely unbalanced for a reason. Do you really want a president who won by campaigning in only a handful of big cities and ignoring the entire midwest and half of New England? I personally don't, and I live in one of those big cities.
Fortunately, we probably don't have to worry about a moronic ammendment to the constitution, because it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, and the smaller states would (rightly so) vote it down.
I disagree. Slashdot is "News for Nerds," not discussion for nerds. It usually happens that a good story will generate interesting discussion, but not always. I think that this is certainly a newsworthy story, and it is after all a story, not a "topic" as one comment called it. There are plenty of other things to discuss, and the obsessive-compulsive posters shouldn't get in a huff when a given story happens to produce less than 200 comments.
For anyone who wants to know what the EPR "paradox" is, or any other basic information concerning quantum encryption, I suggest you check out the comments to one of the past articles on quantum computing or quantum encryption, such as this one.
Otherwise, we'll have the usual ten people making misinformed comments being responded to by the usual ten karma whores writing the usual ten paragraph responses on "spooky action at a distance" and the Schrodinger Cat paradox.
Or better yet, pick up a good book on the subject.
"Also keep in mind that with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, you should see even MORE spending cuts than we saw in the past 8 years with Mr. Veto."
Personally, I think the only reason we've had prosperity these last few years is because the democrat president and republican congress have been to busy disagreeing with eachother to screw anything up. My only hope for this election is that we don't see one party win both the presidency and congress.
"Real physicist" was a poor choice of words, I admit, but I still don't think that he should bring up the fact that he's a physicist all the time in connection with his political theory. The link to his papers is bad, by the way.
No, not all physicists do particle physics, but almost all physicists use quantum mechanics, regardless of their specific field. The only exceptions might be a certain number of astrophysicists. Besides, if Hagelin meant to say that he's an elementary particle physicist, he would have just said it. He says "quantum physicist" because it sounds cool. This isn't a major point; I'm just saying that I can't imagine myself or anyone walking around the physics department saying they're a "quantum physicist." You might say you're elementary particle or high-energy, or a theorist who specializes in some quantum theory, but not a quantum physicist.
If it was feasable, the gold in the electronics would be even more attractive. Unfortunately, it isn't. Studies have been done. It costs several times the worth of the metals to try to extract them.
"As a quantum physicist, I offer a profound and fresh new foundation for governmental administration -- one based upon the most modern and comprehensive scientific understanding of how Nature functions -- that will clarify and redefine our national mission. Unified quantum field theories have revealed the ultimate unity underlying all of life, and provide deep and practical insights into how to skillfully administer and harmonize society's diverse tendencies -- with the same organizing intelligence displayed throughout Nature..."
First of all, a real physicist wouldn't call himself a "quantum physicist." All physicists use quantum mechanics. It's like saying "I'm a space astronomer" or "I'm a life biologist." The fact that he's using a popular term like quantum physicist proves he's trying to court votes by saying "I'm really smart. If I can do quantum physics, I certainly can do this politics stuff."
Secondly, modern physics provides absolutely no insight into how to run a society. A physics degree doesn't qualify someone to fix my car. It doesn't even qualify him to be a chemist because he understands the physics on which chemistry is based. And it certainly doesn't qualify him to be a politician because he understands the physics on which chemistry on which biology on which psychology on which sociology on which politics might somehow be based. If he believes in some sort of deep interconnectedness, he should refer to it as the new age mysticism it is rather than science. And in either case, he shouldn't bother bringing it up.
Why do these articles keep getting posted to the front page? We've probably had about 4 or 5 in the last few days, each retracting parts of the earlier ones. Some people might be interested in the latest misinformation concerning the sega saga, but post it directly into the game section. Then maybe you wouldn't get 900 "this article sucks" posts.
When people aren't confusing quantum computing with quantum cryptography, they're busy confusing the purposes of the two. Quantum cryptography (of which the above is a reasonably accurate description) is handy method of realtime authentication between two parties. Despite it's name, however, it is not in the most general sense encryption. In real life, people need to encrypt files. They need to be able to leave them on their hard drive in a secure form. They need to send them multiple times to various people. They need to have the capability to use public and private keys and an existing infrastructure (the internet). Quantum cryptography will be useful for a very small handful of organizations who can afford dedicated connections (and who will need other means to secure data once it's been sent). It is in no way a replacement for encryption.
I'm not an expert, but if and when quantum computing becomes feasable, I see no way that encryption could exist in the way it does today. At best, individuals will have to rely on security through obscurity, creating complicated algorithms using proprietary (quantum) hardware that would be prohibitively expensive for another party to reverse engineer. Or maybe someone will come up with something really new that doesn't rely on quantum-computable math. In any case, the age of PGP and the like will be over.