Reversible computing is severly limited in terms of normal processor operations. This means that operations such as modular multiplication start to build up a lot of data since you need to 'remember' the two number multiplied in order to undo the operation.
Consider multiplying two numbers, a and b. So a * b = c. Now to undo the operation you only need c and either a or b. So with normal multiplication (or addition, etc) you have two inputs as such and you need to remember two outputs. This gets worse with modular multiplication (depending on the exact set up) since you may need to remember a, b, and c to undo the operation.
When you think of standerd computer operations, most of them are lossy. The problem with reversible computing is coming up with algorithms that are reversible and still useful. This is the case with quantum computers -- quantum operations are not allowed to lose info, so they are reversible. The most famous quantum algorithm, Shor's Algorithm, will factor very large integers quite easily on a quantum computer. It is actually a probabalistic algorithm, and quite complicated (and interesting). Although the entire opeartion is not reversible (and hense not all quantum), the key components are indeed reversible. Other than Shor's Algorithm, there are not a whole lot of algorithm's for quantum computers becuase they are reversible by nature, and, as such, are limiting to work with.
I agree with the author of the article that more research should be done on reversible chips, algorithims, etc. However, I feel that people should understand the limitations inherent in such a system.
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz ($60) + Grado SR60 Headphones ($70) will probably sound better... And at $130 would be very reasonable.
Re:reinventing the wheel
on
Airborne Mouse
·
· Score: 2, Informative
These have existed for AT LEAST two years, I used a GyroMouse in the summer of 2000, if not the year before that. Either way, they are nothing new, and not really that great. A wireless optical mouse is superior.
Vermont, that little liberal bastion of the North, may be a good choice.
Here are a few reasons:
1 Small Population (about half a million), so a group of dedicated citizens can have an effect.
2 Open minded politics already exist. For example, Vermont recognizes Civil Unions between homosexual couples and the state uses an inovative and effecitve plan buy perscription drugs at reduced cost (also known as Canada).
3 Enviromentally friendly state.
4 Large producer of high quality pot.
Of course, Vermont is currently doing quite well, some othere states could use this groups efforts quite a bit more.
Sounds like this technology could drastically improve implementing Quantum Cryptography. Imagine, long distance completely secure connections , that are provably unbreakable. Lets see Carnivore tackle that.
Overall, I find myself using iMail regularly, and have found no need to set anything else up at work on my OS X machine. I prefer iMail to Outlook, and find that it has useful features and a simple interface. I'd have to say I even prefer it slightly to Sylpheed, Evolution, and Mozilla's mail client overall.
I found iMail easy to set up and connect to our exchange server using IMAP. Connecting to our LDAP was also easy, and the addressing features work well. Although unclear at first, a little color ball shows up next to a persons messages in iMail if that person is iChat (a good idea). My only real complaint is that the search feature seems shitty so far, particularly when compared to Evolution's.
As for Jaguar, I am using it in a M$ dominated office setting with few problems. The biggest pain in the ass is not being able to use the damn M$ calandering system from my machine. Hopefully iCal will fix this gaping hole.
As much as I have been enjoying OS X at the office, I still prefer Linux for programming and for my home machines.
Also, for those in an environment with Novell servers, I have been trying a demo of Prosoft Engineering's NetWare for MAC OS X. This solves another big problem with OS X. And although I wouldn't call it intuitive, it is not too bad to set up and uses IP instead of appletalk. I have to do furter testing on that, and any information or experiences Netware on OS X would be useful.
Sure, Microsoft has to date produced lots of software with security holes "large enough to drive a truck through". However bear in mind that the holes have usually been a consequence of the overriding principle of wanting to keep things user-friendly at all costs.
M$ produces products on various levels, and yes, there home operating systems are based on user-friendly at all costs. However, you can't say that all M$ products are aimed primarily at user-friendly. M$ does not blatenly ingnore security with their high end producst, they just have a bad track record.
Their past history doesnt imply anything about how secure they can make their stuff.
Perhaps not, but it certainly sets a pattern. Security is not so much an added feature as it is a mentality. Security needs to be incorperated in to a design from the bottom up, not just as an extra bonus. This is where M$ historically fails, they use poor designs, and then try to patch over security design flaws later.
Certainly, Microsoft hires a lot of smart people and I'm sure that if they were given the mandate to design and implement a secure infrastructure, they could do it - something that Bruce seems to think is impossible.
Having smart people means nothing if they are not given freedom to design and inovate. This is why M$ can't compete on a fair playing field with Open Source software and as such is adjusting their tact to fight a legal and political battle.
If you can't build a superior product, simply get the government to give you a monopoly.
Red Hat is volunteering to provide software to all US schools, and suggest Microsoft should spend the money on hardware donations. Check out the article here:
Red Hat's Idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine is it very difficult to navigate a waterway between two dams (as he mentioned)...
Reversible computing is severly limited in terms of normal processor operations. This means that operations such as modular multiplication start to build up a lot of data since you need to 'remember' the two number multiplied in order to undo the operation.
Consider multiplying two numbers, a and b. So a * b = c. Now to undo the operation you only need c and either a or b. So with normal multiplication (or addition, etc) you have two inputs as such and you need to remember two outputs. This gets worse with modular multiplication (depending on the exact set up) since you may need to remember a, b, and c to undo the operation.
When you think of standerd computer operations, most of them are lossy. The problem with reversible computing is coming up with algorithms that are reversible and still useful. This is the case with quantum computers -- quantum operations are not allowed to lose info, so they are reversible. The most famous quantum algorithm, Shor's Algorithm, will factor very large integers quite easily on a quantum computer. It is actually a probabalistic algorithm, and quite complicated (and interesting). Although the entire opeartion is not reversible (and hense not all quantum), the key components are indeed reversible. Other than Shor's Algorithm, there are not a whole lot of algorithm's for quantum computers becuase they are reversible by nature, and, as such, are limiting to work with.
I agree with the author of the article that more research should be done on reversible chips, algorithims, etc. However, I feel that people should understand the limitations inherent in such a system.
Well according to Linux Hardware there will be XGI provided Linux drivers in a few months!
Another company, S3, is back with a new line of cards here. They are also looking to break into the market this quarter.
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz ($60) + Grado SR60 Headphones ($70) will probably sound better... And at $130 would be very reasonable.
These have existed for AT LEAST two years, I used a GyroMouse in the summer of 2000, if not the year before that. Either way, they are nothing new, and not really that great. A wireless optical mouse is superior.
Vermont, that little liberal bastion of the North, may be a good choice.
Here are a few reasons:
1 Small Population (about half a million), so a group of dedicated citizens can have an effect.
2 Open minded politics already exist. For example, Vermont recognizes Civil Unions between homosexual couples and the state uses an inovative and effecitve plan buy perscription drugs at reduced cost (also known as Canada).
3 Enviromentally friendly state.
4 Large producer of high quality pot.
Of course, Vermont is currently doing quite well, some othere states could use this groups efforts quite a bit more.
Sounds like this technology could drastically improve implementing Quantum Cryptography. Imagine, long distance completely secure connections , that are provably unbreakable. Lets see Carnivore tackle that.
Overall, I find myself using iMail regularly, and have found no need to set anything else up at work on my OS X machine. I prefer iMail to Outlook, and find that it has useful features and a simple interface. I'd have to say I even prefer it slightly to Sylpheed, Evolution, and Mozilla's mail client overall.
I found iMail easy to set up and connect to our exchange server using IMAP. Connecting to our LDAP was also easy, and the addressing features work well. Although unclear at first, a little color ball shows up next to a persons messages in iMail if that person is iChat (a good idea). My only real complaint is that the search feature seems shitty so far, particularly when compared to Evolution's.
As for Jaguar, I am using it in a M$ dominated office setting with few problems. The biggest pain in the ass is not being able to use the damn M$ calandering system from my machine. Hopefully iCal will fix this gaping hole.
As much as I have been enjoying OS X at the office, I still prefer Linux for programming and for my home machines.
Also, for those in an environment with Novell servers, I have been trying a demo of Prosoft Engineering's NetWare for MAC OS X. This solves another big problem with OS X. And although I wouldn't call it intuitive, it is not too bad to set up and uses IP instead of appletalk. I have to do furter testing on that, and any information or experiences Netware on OS X would be useful.
Sure, Microsoft has to date produced lots of software with security holes "large enough to drive a truck through". However bear in mind that the holes have usually been a consequence of the overriding principle of wanting to keep things user-friendly at all costs.
M$ produces products on various levels, and yes, there home operating systems are based on user-friendly at all costs. However, you can't say that all M$ products are aimed primarily at user-friendly. M$ does not blatenly ingnore security with their high end producst, they just have a bad track record.
Their past history doesnt imply anything about how secure they can make their stuff.
Perhaps not, but it certainly sets a pattern. Security is not so much an added feature as it is a mentality. Security needs to be incorperated in to a design from the bottom up, not just as an extra bonus. This is where M$ historically fails, they use poor designs, and then try to patch over security design flaws later.
Certainly, Microsoft hires a lot of smart people and I'm sure that if they were given the mandate to design and implement a secure infrastructure, they could do it - something that Bruce seems to think is impossible.
Having smart people means nothing if they are not given freedom to design and inovate. This is why M$ can't compete on a fair playing field with Open Source software and as such is adjusting their tact to fight a legal and political battle.
If you can't build a superior product, simply get the government to give you a monopoly.
Red Hat is volunteering to provide software to all US schools, and suggest Microsoft should spend the money on hardware donations. Check out the article here: Red Hat's Idea.