Yes, and maybe they're all puppets of the alien race that lives on the far side of the moon and secretly took over the NSA after we faked the moon landing.
In short, the point is I have no personal knowledge of what goes on in the classified projects of the US government, but there's no good reason to think that this technology was developed earlier or has been developed faster. In fact, in view of issues covered in my original post, it seems rather unlikely. We could think up all sorts of crazy ideas that none of us can prove false, but I would suggest we follow Occam's Razor and choose the simplest explaination to fit the known facts.
While I have also often heard stories of the NSA having much more advanced equipment and techniques than the private sector, or at least than the non-classified private sector, in the case of quantum computing this is unlikely. First, it's a relatively new subject. Shore's algorithm, for example, was only discovered in the 80's. There really hasn't been enough time for them to get so far ahead. Second, the NSA is full mostly of mathematicians and computer scientsts, not physicists, so they really don't have the right staff for that. Third, most of the academic research is funded by the NSA.
Finally, though it's hard to say exactly how far this technology is from being useful (or alternately the probability that it will EVER be useful), it is probably safe to say it will be quite a while from now. Moreover, it is probably also safe to say that it only gets harder from here. Larger computations will involve the same problems as these only on larger scales plus a whole new, tougher, slew of problems that these avoid. These are chiefly quantum decoherence and entangling large numbers of quantum states.
Quantum decoherence is the loss of the special quantum information (quantum phase relations) that allows quantum computers to do their funky magic. This happens over time in any system that has any interaction with the outside world. I think these small calculations largely avoid this problem because they are reasonably fast. Larger ones involve more steps and thus will run up against these problems. Some error correcting quantum codes have been developed, but these involve even more qubits, which exaserbates the other problems, and are still largely in the formative stages.
The other big hurdle is entangling much larger numbers of particles in one state. These take advantage of the interactions between different nuclei in the same molecule. Once you need many more qubits, you will need to come up with a more general scheme for entangling the quantum states, because it's unlikely that you'll be able to engineer a molicule for the purpose. Also, the bigger you make your system, the more strongly it interacts with the outside world and the worse decoherence becomes....Life's a bitch, ain't it?
So, I think this is really exciting and quantum computers have great promise, but I don't expect to have a quantum co-processor in my PC any time soon, nor do I really think it's likely that the NSA has a quantum supercomputer sitting in the back room decrypting my credit card information.
I think that is essentially true, but the point is that it would allow such problems to be solved efficiently; thus, we would have to think about the consequences, so I think the tone of the parent post, dismissing this as a pipe-dream, is unwarrented.
Given advances in alternate methods of computing, such as quantum computing, NMR computing (ensamble quantum computing), and DNA computing, to name a few, there is good reason to consider such a question.
It is also ironic that the examples of unsolved problems given may certaintly at one time have been considered intractable, but several have now been decided. Similarly, although it is not obvious now how to do it, it does not seem too incredible that it could be solved in the not-too-distant future.
I think that the abilty to track what you're watching has many possible positive uses. Targeted advertising is one, the ability to suggest programming based on the tastes of similar users is another, a more precise idea of what people like than the Nielsons is something else. All these things are good.
I have always been willing to let my information be collected to statistical analysis, when it is not personally identifiable. If all that is recorded is, "People who like show X are interested in products of type Y and also like shows of type X'," I don't see much of a problem. If, however, what is eventually recorded by the company is my specific viewing habits, that is a bit entrusive. It is true that this happens elsewhere, with shopping cards and cookies on the internet, I guess it depends on what things you think people can collect by those methods and how much you care. But I guess the thing is that any day I can just start paying in cash, or tell Opera not to accept any cookies. If you can likewise turn off these features in MS's set top box any time you want, fine, but I doubt you will be able to.
The bottom line is that in the end, for all of the purposes I stated at the top, you don't really need personalized information to do a decent job. You'd do the best job with personalized information, but you could do ok just recording correlations of shows with specific interests or preferences. The thing is that to do this, often you are sending them personally identifiable information, which is then processed and none of the personal part is kept. It then comes down to, do you trust the company not to keep that personal info? There are some companies I would trust with that...Microsoft is probably not one of them. Some of the things like targeted ads, could be done to some degree in-box. Like it sends the box 4 perspective adds to show and then based on your viewing habbits, it picks the one you're most likely to like. The less info is uploaded the better. Still, I think I'd go with a company I trust more.
...Besides, how long will it be until they hook these things up with some sort of internet connectivity and then there's a worm that will go around sending messages to your Granma showing her the sleezy stuff you like to watch?
"TV sucks!" "I know you're angry right now, so I'm going to pretend you didn't say that."
The point is that a University is an institution of higher learning, not a job training center. Their goal is to impart knowledge and expand the scope of knowledge, not to get you a particular job. The former role is of course their historical origin, and, I think is very worthwhile, because it is that attitude that continues expansion of knowledge in many fields.
This especially applies to fields that are not terribly marketable, such as some of the humanities, arts, and pure math and science. While these may not be cash cows directly, their developement does lead eventually to innovation with commercial or political application, or enrichment of the culture as a whole. I think these are very worthwhile, even essential goals that must be maintained. Many people at Universities these days (both students and faculty) want to turn them into vocational school. While I think the school definitely has to provided guidence to resources, it is wrong to pervert an institution of higher learning into a job training center.
I think there's certainly nothing wrong with wanting an education that just trains you for a job. There are certainly places for that, places more like DeVry or Strayer, so you might look into something like that and/or interships.
Finally, I think that they don't teach all the neccessarry skills for an entry level position also as a pragmatic matter. They simply can't. The variety of requirements for different jobs are too large or it requires an amount or kind of experience (say coding a major project), that they can't provide in the limited setting of classes. I think they feel that they can't teach you the specifics, so the best solution is to teach you the things that will allow you to learn the skills you will need, and integrate them into a coherent framework.
I also thought the article lacked a lot of relevent info and, what's more, said some things that were just wrong. A few additional pieces of information that might be of interest:
A quantum computer is not simply faster than a classical computer
Quantum computers use a different set of fundemental logical operations, which allow them to do all the things a classical computer (Turing machine) can, plus it allows some other operations to be done using the superpositions or entaglement of states. This means there are some problems for which fundementally different algerithms can be written to do it much faster, in polynomial time as apposed to exponential; however, there are just a few of these. There's no reason to think it will be faster for everything. For most tasks odds are its algerithms will be just as efficient as a classical computer. In addition, its logic operations will likely be slower meaning it may well be slower for the vast majority of tasks. So, don't expect a desktop QC in 20 years, it would probably be used only for specialized computational tasks for the forseable future.
A quantum computer is not right around the corner
Though the article gives little detail, the computer they're talking about making in 10 years will probably not be amongst the most powerful in the world when it is turned on. Odds are it will be more like the size of house with the power of a pocket calculator, old school mainframe style. This is due to the difficulties they mention. This is not really made very clear in the article, but the difficulties they face aren't just practical. Even theoretical calculations suggest that it's not feasible with currently theorized techniques to make a quantum computer more than about 100 qubits, due to decoherence and computer control factors. Quoth one paper, "...the absolute limit on what any practical NMR comptuer can handle remains well below 100 bits" (Cory et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1997). I've read similar estimates for all forms of quantum computation currently in the works. It seems that it takes a computer with on the order of 500 to 1000s of qubits before it actually becomes more useful than a classical computer. This should not be hard to imagine. What do you think you could do with a computer that could only hold 100 bits of memory at a time? The point is that in ten years, we won't be seeing any supercomputer.
Quantum computers are not the next step in miniturization
The article says that we're reaching the limit of classical computation and suggest that quantum computers are the next step. It is true that Feynmann suggested in his original paper on the topic in 1983 that when computer technology reached the atomic scale then quantum mechanics would have to become part of computation, but quantum computers as they are talked about today have little to do with miniturization. In many of the schemes, such as atom traps quantum computers, the memory and computation elements (when control devices are included) are much larger than those for classical computers. This can also be said for RF-Squids and quantum dots. In short, the proimise of quantum computers has nothing to do with miniturization, it has to do with the fact that they can perform fundementally different algerithms.
All that being said, I think it is a good that they're doing this research, and I do think that quantum computers will likely someday be useful, both as computers and as tools for researching quantum mechanics further. I am not saying I don't think they'll work, simply that the article seems to suggest a picture which is overly optimistic. However, with the great promise they hold, I don't think we can afford not to do research like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and maybe they're all puppets of the alien race that lives on the far side of the moon and secretly took over the NSA after we faked the moon landing.
In short, the point is I have no personal knowledge of what goes on in the classified projects of the US government, but there's no good reason to think that this technology was developed earlier or has been developed faster. In fact, in view of issues covered in my original post, it seems rather unlikely. We could think up all sorts of crazy ideas that none of us can prove false, but I would suggest we follow Occam's Razor and choose the simplest explaination to fit the known facts.
Sorry, I was thinking of Feynman's seminal paper on the topic (more or less the begining of the whole thing), which was published on '83 or 84'.
While I have also often heard stories of the NSA having much more advanced equipment and techniques than the private sector, or at least than the non-classified private sector, in the case of quantum computing this is unlikely. First, it's a relatively new subject. Shore's algorithm, for example, was only discovered in the 80's. There really hasn't been enough time for them to get so far ahead. Second, the NSA is full mostly of mathematicians and computer scientsts, not physicists, so they really don't have the right staff for that. Third, most of the academic research is funded by the NSA.
Finally, though it's hard to say exactly how far this technology is from being useful (or alternately the probability that it will EVER be useful), it is probably safe to say it will be quite a while from now. Moreover, it is probably also safe to say that it only gets harder from here. Larger computations will involve the same problems as these only on larger scales plus a whole new, tougher, slew of problems that these avoid. These are chiefly quantum decoherence and entangling large numbers of quantum states.
Quantum decoherence is the loss of the special quantum information (quantum phase relations) that allows quantum computers to do their funky magic. This happens over time in any system that has any interaction with the outside world. I think these small calculations largely avoid this problem because they are reasonably fast. Larger ones involve more steps and thus will run up against these problems. Some error correcting quantum codes have been developed, but these involve even more qubits, which exaserbates the other problems, and are still largely in the formative stages.
The other big hurdle is entangling much larger numbers of particles in one state. These take advantage of the interactions between different nuclei in the same molecule. Once you need many more qubits, you will need to come up with a more general scheme for entangling the quantum states, because it's unlikely that you'll be able to engineer a molicule for the purpose. Also, the bigger you make your system, the more strongly it interacts with the outside world and the worse decoherence becomes....Life's a bitch, ain't it?
So, I think this is really exciting and quantum computers have great promise, but I don't expect to have a quantum co-processor in my PC any time soon, nor do I really think it's likely that the NSA has a quantum supercomputer sitting in the back room decrypting my credit card information.
I think that is essentially true, but the point is that it would allow such problems to be solved efficiently; thus, we would have to think about the consequences, so I think the tone of the parent post, dismissing this as a pipe-dream, is unwarrented.
Given advances in alternate methods of computing, such as quantum computing, NMR computing (ensamble quantum computing), and DNA computing, to name a few, there is good reason to consider such a question.
It is also ironic that the examples of unsolved problems given may certaintly at one time have been considered intractable, but several have now been decided. Similarly, although it is not obvious now how to do it, it does not seem too incredible that it could be solved in the not-too-distant future.
I think that the abilty to track what you're watching has many possible positive uses. Targeted advertising is one, the ability to suggest programming based on the tastes of similar users is another, a more precise idea of what people like than the Nielsons is something else. All these things are good.
I have always been willing to let my information be collected to statistical analysis, when it is not personally identifiable. If all that is recorded is, "People who like show X are interested in products of type Y and also like shows of type X'," I don't see much of a problem. If, however, what is eventually recorded by the company is my specific viewing habits, that is a bit entrusive. It is true that this happens elsewhere, with shopping cards and cookies on the internet, I guess it depends on what things you think people can collect by those methods and how much you care. But I guess the thing is that any day I can just start paying in cash, or tell Opera not to accept any cookies. If you can likewise turn off these features in MS's set top box any time you want, fine, but I doubt you will be able to.
The bottom line is that in the end, for all of the purposes I stated at the top, you don't really need personalized information to do a decent job. You'd do the best job with personalized information, but you could do ok just recording correlations of shows with specific interests or preferences. The thing is that to do this, often you are sending them personally identifiable information, which is then processed and none of the personal part is kept. It then comes down to, do you trust the company not to keep that personal info? There are some companies I would trust with that...Microsoft is probably not one of them. Some of the things like targeted ads, could be done to some degree in-box. Like it sends the box 4 perspective adds to show and then based on your viewing habbits, it picks the one you're most likely to like. The less info is uploaded the better. Still, I think I'd go with a company I trust more.
...Besides, how long will it be until they hook these things up with some sort of internet connectivity and then there's a worm that will go around sending messages to your Granma showing her the sleezy stuff you like to watch?
"TV sucks!"
"I know you're angry right now, so I'm going to pretend you didn't say that."
If they don't get a Foster's endorsement, they're fools.
And the title for this new MS-spearheaded security initiative: "Ignorance Is Strength"
The point is that a University is an institution of higher learning, not a job training center. Their goal is to impart knowledge and expand the scope of knowledge, not to get you a particular job. The former role is of course their historical origin, and, I think is very worthwhile, because it is that attitude that continues expansion of knowledge in many fields.
This especially applies to fields that are not terribly marketable, such as some of the humanities, arts, and pure math and science. While these may not be cash cows directly, their developement does lead eventually to innovation with commercial or political application, or enrichment of the culture as a whole. I think these are very worthwhile, even essential goals that must be maintained. Many people at Universities these days (both students and faculty) want to turn them into vocational school. While I think the school definitely has to provided guidence to resources, it is wrong to pervert an institution of higher learning into a job training center.
I think there's certainly nothing wrong with wanting an education that just trains you for a job. There are certainly places for that, places more like DeVry or Strayer, so you might look into something like that and/or interships.
Finally, I think that they don't teach all the neccessarry skills for an entry level position also as a pragmatic matter. They simply can't. The variety of requirements for different jobs are too large or it requires an amount or kind of experience (say coding a major project), that they can't provide in the limited setting of classes. I think they feel that they can't teach you the specifics, so the best solution is to teach you the things that will allow you to learn the skills you will need, and integrate them into a coherent framework.
I also thought the article lacked a lot of relevent info and, what's more, said some things that were just wrong. A few additional pieces of information that might be of interest:
A quantum computer is not simply faster than a classical computer
Quantum computers use a different set of fundemental logical operations, which allow them to do all the things a classical computer (Turing machine) can, plus it allows some other operations to be done using the superpositions or entaglement of states. This means there are some problems for which fundementally different algerithms can be written to do it much faster, in polynomial time as apposed to exponential; however, there are just a few of these. There's no reason to think it will be faster for everything. For most tasks odds are its algerithms will be just as efficient as a classical computer. In addition, its logic operations will likely be slower meaning it may well be slower for the vast majority of tasks. So, don't expect a desktop QC in 20 years, it would probably be used only for specialized computational tasks for the forseable future.
A quantum computer is not right around the corner
Though the article gives little detail, the computer they're talking about making in 10 years will probably not be amongst the most powerful in the world when it is turned on. Odds are it will be more like the size of house with the power of a pocket calculator, old school mainframe style. This is due to the difficulties they mention. This is not really made very clear in the article, but the difficulties they face aren't just practical. Even theoretical calculations suggest that it's not feasible with currently theorized techniques to make a quantum computer more than about 100 qubits, due to decoherence and computer control factors. Quoth one paper, "...the absolute limit on what any practical NMR comptuer can handle remains well below 100 bits" (Cory et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1997). I've read similar estimates for all forms of quantum computation currently in the works. It seems that it takes a computer with on the order of 500 to 1000s of qubits before it actually becomes more useful than a classical computer. This should not be hard to imagine. What do you think you could do with a computer that could only hold 100 bits of memory at a time? The point is that in ten years, we won't be seeing any supercomputer.
Quantum computers are not the next step in miniturization
The article says that we're reaching the limit of classical computation and suggest that quantum computers are the next step. It is true that Feynmann suggested in his original paper on the topic in 1983 that when computer technology reached the atomic scale then quantum mechanics would have to become part of computation, but quantum computers as they are talked about today have little to do with miniturization. In many of the schemes, such as atom traps quantum computers, the memory and computation elements (when control devices are included) are much larger than those for classical computers. This can also be said for RF-Squids and quantum dots. In short, the proimise of quantum computers has nothing to do with miniturization, it has to do with the fact that they can perform fundementally different algerithms.
All that being said, I think it is a good that they're doing this research, and I do think that quantum computers will likely someday be useful, both as computers and as tools for researching quantum mechanics further. I am not saying I don't think they'll work, simply that the article seems to suggest a picture which is overly optimistic. However, with the great promise they hold, I don't think we can afford not to do research like this.