It would be nice to apply this theory to the root of computing but it seems like reinvesting the wheel to me. Why not allow the 1's and 0's be the controlled input.
I mean I already see some of this theory taking place, in a similar form, in distributed computing. Think about how networks are moving away from N-tier systems to service oriented architecture.
" It was clear to many physicists that using "qubits"--which, unlike ordinary bits, can exist in a "superposition" of the values 0 and 1 simultaneously--might yield an exponential improvement in computing power. This is because a pair of qubits could be in four different states at once, three qubits in eight, and so forth."
How does not answering the equation make this related to chaos theory? It's more like a hesitation in providing the correct answer if I read the article correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have the money go for it! Most people going into school would be fine with linux or Windows.
Not by you! Ya gay mac developer.
Zing! Wham! blah... blah...
"Apple to add more sessions focusing on enterprise and IT"
I hope it comes in PINK!
This is not a technology problem.
Just put this on the front page of the gmail site,"Sorry not available to European Consumers".
It would be nice to apply this theory to the root of computing but it seems like reinvesting the wheel to me. Why not allow the 1's and 0's be the controlled input.
I mean I already see some of this theory taking place, in a similar form, in distributed computing. Think about how networks are moving away from N-tier systems to service oriented architecture.
" It was clear to many physicists that using "qubits"--which, unlike ordinary bits, can exist in a "superposition" of the values 0 and 1 simultaneously--might yield an exponential improvement in computing power. This is because a pair of qubits could be in four different states at once, three qubits in eight, and so forth."
How does not answering the equation make this related to chaos theory? It's more like a hesitation in providing the correct answer if I read the article correctly.
WOW! I thought sarcasm was easier to point out... I guess the troll rating was correct after all.