Ads that are *INTERESTING*. I watch those on my TiVo. I skip the boring ones.
Sadly, it isn't the ads that are interesting that hooks viewers. There are a couple of formulas which are highly successful in brainwashing you to buying products.
These are all the things which we consider annoying in them in the first place:
lambasting the screen with gratuitous logos,
taking up valuable brain real-estate with tacky jingles,
gratuitous repetition (you WILL buy this product etc.)
Quantum security is theoretically infallable, thanks the Heisenbergs principle. Only the message you receive is the key that you use (intercepted bits are altered).
I imagine the author is refering to the generation of primes (and the factorisation of large numbers) for generating shared keys and hacking RSA encryption - i.e. Quantum computers can be used for conventional security.
Re:Notes on quantum computing...
on
Future Computers
·
· Score: 1
One thing that popular science magazines fail to mention is that Quantum computing can never fully replace conventional computing.
They're marvelous at solving prime number factorisation (cracking the RSA prime number problem in O(n^2) - lucky for us, quantum security is guarenteed to be safe (but that is another topic)), but they're not so good for things which need to give feedback.
How a quantum computer will look in the future is there will be a "black box" plugged into a port (not unlike the current external ray-tracers which are being flogged) which will do all your quantum number crunching, but for everyday processing, good old serial silicon is irreplaceable.
Think about a chess game - a simple serial PC will be able to happily take in your current move, produce a game tree, and return the next best move. A quantum computer would be fairly useless in processing every single move - its true advantage would be to process a batch of, say, 10 moves ahead, and give you the results after your 10 moves.
Not particularly interactive.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, it isn't the ads that are interesting that hooks viewers. There are a couple of formulas which are highly successful in brainwashing you to buying products.
These are all the things which we consider annoying in them in the first place:
- lambasting the screen with gratuitous logos,
- taking up valuable brain real-estate with tacky jingles,
- gratuitous repetition (you WILL buy this product etc.)
. . . to name a few.Quantum security is theoretically infallable, thanks the Heisenbergs principle. Only the message you receive is the key that you use (intercepted bits are altered). I imagine the author is refering to the generation of primes (and the factorisation of large numbers) for generating shared keys and hacking RSA encryption - i.e. Quantum computers can be used for conventional security.
One thing that popular science magazines fail to mention is that Quantum computing can never fully replace conventional computing. They're marvelous at solving prime number factorisation (cracking the RSA prime number problem in O(n^2) - lucky for us, quantum security is guarenteed to be safe (but that is another topic)), but they're not so good for things which need to give feedback. How a quantum computer will look in the future is there will be a "black box" plugged into a port (not unlike the current external ray-tracers which are being flogged) which will do all your quantum number crunching, but for everyday processing, good old serial silicon is irreplaceable. Think about a chess game - a simple serial PC will be able to happily take in your current move, produce a game tree, and return the next best move. A quantum computer would be fairly useless in processing every single move - its true advantage would be to process a batch of, say, 10 moves ahead, and give you the results after your 10 moves. Not particularly interactive.