They seriously used _that_ as a reason? People this extremely irrational and panicky have no business deciding what gets taught in school.
Oh, well. Most people cannot be engineers or scientists (or good coders, which are basically engineers in anything but name) anyways. Maybe we should give everybody an aptitude test at age 6 and then give the 10...15% that can actually think the full, science-heavy and math-heavy curriculum and teach the others flower arrangement, internet shopping, poetry appreciation and other things that they can actually master. Then the 10...15% can run and decide everything important and the rest can be under the illusion they are the ones that matter.
We did set theory (and hence elementary logic) in elementary school. Probably the mart that was most useful to me later. A few years later they dropped it because it was "too hard". I never noticed that, I think this was purely the adults projecting.
Complete nonsense, spouted by uninformed morons and those greedy for funding and not above lying. There is no linear trend in qbits either, as soon as you require that all-critical entanglement being stable under computations.
You should correct your approach to things. Arrogance and incompetence is a bad combination. At least you are willing to listen to arguments, which makes you already better than a large part of the population, so there is some limited hope for you. Also, the autopilot has another redundancy, it is called a "pilot". They are well informed about what the auto-pilot does and that they need to monitor it and disable it under certain conditions. For the MCAS, Boeing sabotaged that redundancy.
No, I have education in statistical methods. You obviously do not. That makes you uneducated, incompetent and arrogant. In actual reality, it depends entirely on the border-conditions.
Completely agree, the whole thing is BS. There is no threat to encryption from QCs at this time. Maybe when they can break DES or factor arbitrary 512 bit numbers, we need to think about it, but that looks unlikely to happen in the next 50 years, if the last 50 years are any indication.
10 years is also not a time were we will see any significant advances in Quantum Computing. Maybe in 100 years, maybe never. Remember that we have been at this for like 50 years now and there is _still_ no viable computing hardware. All other alternate computing approaches have gone to the trash-heap of tech history long before that. But because many people associate "quantum" with "magic", this is still going, despite no practical results.
Since it is more like > 100 years for publicly available, and may well be "never", nobody has anything here. Also, if any such machine were used, there would be indications. There is none. In fact, the demented push against encryption is repeated again and again, rather strongly indicating that nobody can get into good encryption.
Also remember that even a perfect QC cannot break something like AES-256 in this universe. It would still require 2^128 or so computations and that is just not feasible, no matter what resources you have. Oh, and that is the known-plaintext case, the other ones are harder.
"10 years" is the time were most people making predictions hope that nobody will remember what they predicted. Here, it is obvious complete nonsense, but only experts can see that. All the others, including a large group of self-proclaimed experts that in reality do not know what they are talking about, are just going with the demented hype.
I agree. The number of entangled qbits has been scaling atrociously bad over the last few decades. A linear increase in qbits may well come with an exponential increase in effort and we may never reach even 100 of them. Also, the computations done with entangled qbits do not yet conclusively prove that quantum computing is really possible. The complexity of the computations done so far is so low that this could still be some other effect. Sure, the theory says it works, but remember that basically every physical model so far has failed when accuracy was scaled up enough. The accuracy scaling needed for breaking even simple ciphers is extreme here.
Hence predictions that we will be able to do it at all are, at this time, basically lies, nothing else. There is no reliable data either way and a lot of indicators that it likely is practically impossible and it may still turn out to be theoretically impossible, giving us a better understanding of Physics in the process.
You should not guess, you are terrible at it. Buying Bitcoin is a terrible idea, but that has nothing to do with using QCs to factor numbers in the required sizes. That will not happen anytime soon.
they completely ignored the requirement that in avionics everything critical for safety needs to be redundant.
The MCAS system is not required for safety, ergo you're just flat out wrong about this.
You have so clue about safety engineering. A system that can _endanger_ the plane if active is safety-critical. It does not have the requirement to be available, but it does have the requirement to be safe when active.
Your explanations are probably a waste of time. Regular people are not equipped or educated to understand statistical methods, but they do not understand that either. The Dunning-Kruger effect is particularly strong in this area.
In my mind, this is more of a "device" which is in line with the terminology we use for other specialized CMOS structures. And it is more like "overcoming an engineering hurdle" than "solving one of QC's biggest problems".
But still quite impressive.
Indeed. The biggest hurdle is that entanglement scales extremely badly. From available evidence (scaling over several decades), even an exponential increase in effort for each qbit added is plausible. That would mean that QC's will not get much larger than they are today and will never even reach the power of conventional computers. That they talk about millions of qbits is just hubris.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see you are one of _those_. Please stay in your filter-bubble.
They seriously used _that_ as a reason? People this extremely irrational and panicky have no business deciding what gets taught in school.
Oh, well. Most people cannot be engineers or scientists (or good coders, which are basically engineers in anything but name) anyways. Maybe we should give everybody an aptitude test at age 6 and then give the 10...15% that can actually think the full, science-heavy and math-heavy curriculum and teach the others flower arrangement, internet shopping, poetry appreciation and other things that they can actually master. Then the 10...15% can run and decide everything important and the rest can be under the illusion they are the ones that matter.
You clearly are just obstinate now. Shame on you.
Not entangled ones. Those are worthless.
Well, you could use more is a) the selection was better and b) there was more real-world connection.
We did set theory (and hence elementary logic) in elementary school. Probably the mart that was most useful to me later. A few years later they dropped it because it was "too hard". I never noticed that, I think this was purely the adults projecting.
Complete nonsense, spouted by uninformed morons and those greedy for funding and not above lying. There is no linear trend in qbits either, as soon as you require that all-critical entanglement being stable under computations.
You should correct your approach to things. Arrogance and incompetence is a bad combination. At least you are willing to listen to arguments, which makes you already better than a large part of the population, so there is some limited hope for you. Also, the autopilot has another redundancy, it is called a "pilot". They are well informed about what the auto-pilot does and that they need to monitor it and disable it under certain conditions. For the MCAS, Boeing sabotaged that redundancy.
No need. I have clear markers in there. That you cannot see them is a problem on your side.
Well, that is a problem on your side, not mine. I do know what I meant.
No, I have education in statistical methods. You obviously do not. That makes you uneducated, incompetent and arrogant. In actual reality, it depends entirely on the border-conditions.
RSA is not broken. Stop pushing lies.
That is our "flying" cars, of course!
Completely agree, the whole thing is BS. There is no threat to encryption from QCs at this time. Maybe when they can break DES or factor arbitrary 512 bit numbers, we need to think about it, but that looks unlikely to happen in the next 50 years, if the last 50 years are any indication.
10 years is also not a time were we will see any significant advances in Quantum Computing. Maybe in 100 years, maybe never. Remember that we have been at this for like 50 years now and there is _still_ no viable computing hardware. All other alternate computing approaches have gone to the trash-heap of tech history long before that. But because many people associate "quantum" with "magic", this is still going, despite no practical results.
Since it is more like > 100 years for publicly available, and may well be "never", nobody has anything here. Also, if any such machine were used, there would be indications. There is none. In fact, the demented push against encryption is repeated again and again, rather strongly indicating that nobody can get into good encryption.
Also remember that even a perfect QC cannot break something like AES-256 in this universe. It would still require 2^128 or so computations and that is just not feasible, no matter what resources you have. Oh, and that is the known-plaintext case, the other ones are harder.
Math. It works.
Like basically all things based on rational thought, it is not accessible to most people though.
"10 years" is the time were most people making predictions hope that nobody will remember what they predicted. Here, it is obvious complete nonsense, but only experts can see that. All the others, including a large group of self-proclaimed experts that in reality do not know what they are talking about, are just going with the demented hype.
I agree. The number of entangled qbits has been scaling atrociously bad over the last few decades. A linear increase in qbits may well come with an exponential increase in effort and we may never reach even 100 of them. Also, the computations done with entangled qbits do not yet conclusively prove that quantum computing is really possible. The complexity of the computations done so far is so low that this could still be some other effect. Sure, the theory says it works, but remember that basically every physical model so far has failed when accuracy was scaled up enough. The accuracy scaling needed for breaking even simple ciphers is extreme here.
Hence predictions that we will be able to do it at all are, at this time, basically lies, nothing else. There is no reliable data either way and a lot of indicators that it likely is practically impossible and it may still turn out to be theoretically impossible, giving us a better understanding of Physics in the process.
You should not guess, you are terrible at it. Buying Bitcoin is a terrible idea, but that has nothing to do with using QCs to factor numbers in the required sizes. That will not happen anytime soon.
You seem to be sarcasm-challenged.
they completely ignored the requirement that in avionics everything critical for safety needs to be redundant.
The MCAS system is not required for safety, ergo you're just flat out wrong about this.
You have so clue about safety engineering. A system that can _endanger_ the plane if active is safety-critical. It does not have the requirement to be available, but it does have the requirement to be safe when active.
.... that's the part that's mystifying.
What does mystify you about 350 dead people?
Your explanations are probably a waste of time. Regular people are not equipped or educated to understand statistical methods, but they do not understand that either. The Dunning-Kruger effect is particularly strong in this area.
No, it does not. The cables are an _additional_ problem to scaling that comes in only with doing computations.
Reasonable explanation IMO.
In my mind, this is more of a "device" which is in line with the terminology we use for other specialized CMOS structures. And it is more like "overcoming an engineering hurdle" than "solving one of QC's biggest problems".
But still quite impressive.
Indeed. The biggest hurdle is that entanglement scales extremely badly. From available evidence (scaling over several decades), even an exponential increase in effort for each qbit added is plausible. That would mean that QC's will not get much larger than they are today and will never even reach the power of conventional computers. That they talk about millions of qbits is just hubris.