And that is _exactly_ the right question. What matters is what the thing can do in comparison to existing technology. And there the D-Wave fails utterly.
Note to moderators: If a posting ends up at +2, Troll, the down-voters have failed to consider properly whether the posting had merit or not, i.e. they failed.
I have to agree that it seems unlikely they were all fooled. But consider this: D-Wave has not and cannot deliver. So they have built a "big lie" and they have found enough people that believe them and would have a lot of egg on their face if they admitted to being wrong. My take is that they found gullible techno-fanbois at all these institutions and worked on them hard and now these cannot back out.
There is no evidence in existence to suggest code breaking quantum computers are even feasible.
Indeed. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of evidence that Quantum Computers cannot scale. For QC's that can actually do computations, they are still at what, 8 bit or so? After a few decades of research? This indicates to any sane person (not the deranged fanbois that think wishing something into existence works) that Quantum Computers may scale inverse-exponential, i.e. around a 100 bits or so you reach the limit of what is possible in this universe.
Not going to happen here. The scam is far too obvious.
And even if we eventually get working Quantum Computers of relevant size (which is an exceptionally big "if"), they will be far less useful than people assume.
No. The D-Wave is a stunt, nothing else. It will never have any practical uses. It has no real scientific basis. It is "snake-oil", not much more, but very expensive snake-oil.
Let's recall for a moment that the primary "fuck" you are talking about is Scott Aaronson who is one of the world's most respected quantum computing experts.
Idiots are usually not able to recognize non-idiots, because they are, well, idiots. A simple corollary to the Dunning-Kruger effect. These are the same morons that claim vaccinations cause Autism and perform other stellar failures to recognize reality.
Aaaaand, fail. You do not compare the same algorithms if the computing devices have fundamentally different characteristics. For example, you do not compare a single CPU computer and a large cluster using the same algorithm. You compare them using algorithms that deliver the same results, but one gets a classical algorithm and the other gets a parallelized one. That is actually benchmarking 101.
Because if you insist in the same algorithm, you will find that one device has to simulate the other in order to be even able ti run that algorithm. That is not a relevant comparison in any way. May as well compare the speed of an airplane and a bicycle and require the bicycle to fly for that. Stupid.
Actually she should go to prison and have all her possession impounded to compensate the users that suffered damage because of her grossly malicious acts.
Except to separate fools and their money. The one before was a bit faster than a simulation of itself on a slow, conventional computer. This one will still be massively slower than the best algorithm for calculating the same thing on a massively cheaper conventional computer. But many people are idiots, and some idiots have a lot of money, hence I do not doubt they will sell this SCAM-device as well.
People may need to learn the hard way that there is no free lunch here. If HP original printer + third party ink looks like a deal that is too good to be true, it probably is. Not defending the underhanded and dishonorable tactics of HP here, but in the end they have to make a profit and if they make a loss on the printer, they have to sell their own ink to compensate. This should not come as a surprise and neither should it be a surprise that HP would resort to sabotage.
The right approach is, of course, to buy from a manufacturer that is upfront about the cost both for printer and ink so that they make a profit on both and hence can live with only selling the printer. This whole problem exists because HP printer customers apparently cannot do basic math and are far too trusting. And no, that is not victim-blaming, that is just pointing out the basic fact that if you make yourself look like a victim, some con-men will find you. Here it has been HP.
I am not convinced that helps, because suddenly you have pretty complex crypto on the user's side and that may just leak the passwords as well. Especially as passwords handled right on the server side no _not_ leak.
I do agree that the state of web-application security is a very sad one, but this is an attempt to fix the wrong problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Hahahhaha, another moron that kids himself. Better to die fast in the surface than slowly starve and go insane like a rat in a hole in the ground.
That would be poetic justice.
And that is _exactly_ the right question. What matters is what the thing can do in comparison to existing technology. And there the D-Wave fails utterly.
Gee, you use lots of foul language. You must be right.
He probably is pissed that people fail to recognize his superior wisdom.
Well, true.
Note to moderators: If a posting ends up at +2, Troll, the down-voters have failed to consider properly whether the posting had merit or not, i.e. they failed.
I may seem so to you, but clearly you are.
The joke is on you....
I have to agree that it seems unlikely they were all fooled. But consider this: D-Wave has not and cannot deliver. So they have built a "big lie" and they have found enough people that believe them and would have a lot of egg on their face if they admitted to being wrong. My take is that they found gullible techno-fanbois at all these institutions and worked on them hard and now these cannot back out.
You think there are no idiots with budget to spare at Google, NASA, Los Alamos or Lockheed Martin? In what world do you live?
Incidentally, I did not give any reference, you pulled that out of your behind.
There is no evidence in existence to suggest code breaking quantum computers are even feasible.
Indeed. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of evidence that Quantum Computers cannot scale. For QC's that can actually do computations, they are still at what, 8 bit or so? After a few decades of research? This indicates to any sane person (not the deranged fanbois that think wishing something into existence works) that Quantum Computers may scale inverse-exponential, i.e. around a 100 bits or so you reach the limit of what is possible in this universe.
Not going to happen here. The scam is far too obvious.
And even if we eventually get working Quantum Computers of relevant size (which is an exceptionally big "if"), they will be far less useful than people assume.
No. The D-Wave is a stunt, nothing else. It will never have any practical uses. It has no real scientific basis. It is "snake-oil", not much more, but very expensive snake-oil.
Let's recall for a moment that the primary "fuck" you are talking about is Scott Aaronson who is one of the world's most respected quantum computing experts.
Idiots are usually not able to recognize non-idiots, because they are, well, idiots. A simple corollary to the Dunning-Kruger effect. These are the same morons that claim vaccinations cause Autism and perform other stellar failures to recognize reality.
Aaaaand, fail. You do not compare the same algorithms if the computing devices have fundamentally different characteristics. For example, you do not compare a single CPU computer and a large cluster using the same algorithm. You compare them using algorithms that deliver the same results, but one gets a classical algorithm and the other gets a parallelized one. That is actually benchmarking 101.
Because if you insist in the same algorithm, you will find that one device has to simulate the other in order to be even able ti run that algorithm. That is not a relevant comparison in any way. May as well compare the speed of an airplane and a bicycle and require the bicycle to fly for that. Stupid.
Or rather don't trust your "Mobile Surveillance Device" that, to add insult to injury, you paid for yourself. It is as simple as that.
Actually she should go to prison and have all her possession impounded to compensate the users that suffered damage because of her grossly malicious acts.
Quite a bit better, because the monkey would not have been able to reject all these sensible proposals.
Well, if she _had_ put the interests of the company first, she would have made sure the company had adequate IT security for long-term survival.
Indeed. She should go to prison and personally have to compensate anybody who suffered damage from her criminal acts.
Nothing you cannot do much better and much faster on a much cheaper conventional computer.
Except to separate fools and their money. The one before was a bit faster than a simulation of itself on a slow, conventional computer. This one will still be massively slower than the best algorithm for calculating the same thing on a massively cheaper conventional computer. But many people are idiots, and some idiots have a lot of money, hence I do not doubt they will sell this SCAM-device as well.
Somebody clearly has lost his marbles.
People may need to learn the hard way that there is no free lunch here. If HP original printer + third party ink looks like a deal that is too good to be true, it probably is. Not defending the underhanded and dishonorable tactics of HP here, but in the end they have to make a profit and if they make a loss on the printer, they have to sell their own ink to compensate. This should not come as a surprise and neither should it be a surprise that HP would resort to sabotage.
The right approach is, of course, to buy from a manufacturer that is upfront about the cost both for printer and ink so that they make a profit on both and hence can live with only selling the printer. This whole problem exists because HP printer customers apparently cannot do basic math and are far too trusting. And no, that is not victim-blaming, that is just pointing out the basic fact that if you make yourself look like a victim, some con-men will find you. Here it has been HP.
I am not convinced that helps, because suddenly you have pretty complex crypto on the user's side and that may just leak the passwords as well. Especially as passwords handled right on the server side no _not_ leak.
I do agree that the state of web-application security is a very sad one, but this is an attempt to fix the wrong problem.