when do i get quantum computers for personal use? till then irrelevant to be interesting news none the less

geogan:

Yes very dangerous... and even more so because the large government and other shady organizations are currently predicting this will happen so that's why they are archiving all current secure encrypted communications and data from major pipes in/out of countries in secret rooms in the entry points funneled to major secret storage facilities, in the hope that soon enough they will be able to crack open all this data for their own use against anyone they want.

Very dangerous if you decrypt with a quantum computer and encrypt using a normal computer. But let's be honest here the first entities who will buy and own a quantum computer will be the cia, nra, american armies, dod, etc .... they will be extremely expensive at first and only the rich will be able to afford it. Also i highly doubt google or whoever develops it will be allowed to sell it to anyone at first. It would be dangerous only if let's say i dunno china develops it first and Trump continues to piss them off. WTF do people think big companies and countries will do with their quantum computer first? They'll re-encrypt everything using qubits and quantum computers power so that a normal quantum computer can't brute force it easily. It's not different than what we have now. A super computer in 2019 can decrypt using brute force something that was encrypted 30 years ago. But nobody is using those algorithms anymore for obvious reasons.

geogan:

I'm not so sure about that... reminds me of the famous IBM prediction for computers when each one was the size of a large room ... "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

I get that it is hard to understand contemporary statements. But this one was easy. For given time and grade of computational use cases, there was very small market. Today, in times when computer is base for practically any science, quantum computers can be again used by very few groups across the world considering required knowledge and funds.

Encryption this, decryption that, qbit up left right and down, revolutionize computing bla bla.... So far nothing practical has been achieved with this magic technology. Not-a-thing. It's all just theory and some obscure experiments that don't do anything practical. I'll remain 100% skeptic until at least one single actual proven use for quantum computers which is outside theoretical physics. Well, I'm wrong. What was achieved is burning some tens of millions of $s from governmental research funds. I wonder when are they going to pull the plug on all the nonsense ?

All thanks to um, Trump? I swear I fell into an alternate dimension in 2016. https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump/status/1186987509609385988

All they really need is an algorithm that will mine the rest of bitcoins in few days 😛

vestibule:

Hmm Interesting. Of course with all new technologies there are spin of technologies. I taste a time machine spin off here. 4 Dimensions and all. My guess is people from the future will travel back in time to take our JOBS>

Deyu tuk aur joobz!

geogan:

I'm not so sure about that... reminds me of the famous IBM prediction for computers when each one was the size of a large room ... "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

Trust me...there will be no practical use at home for them...is like having the money to buy a Ferrari today and using it only to go at the supermarket for groceries... On the other hand in research it would be great: some time ago I worked in the nanotechnology field - more precisely ultra hard diamond like new materials using Ti, Si, C, N and we used computer simulation methods in our work to make cost effective solutions. On a very fast high performance computer after today standards it took 2 - 5 days to make a simulation depending of the complexity - imagine having a quantum chip - it would take seconds if not ms. Yes, like any other great discovery people will use it for bad things (we discovered "the power of the atom" and we immediately created the A - bomb...) but I think that in the long run - if quantum chips are really possible to create - the benefits for humanity will be immense.

geogan:

I'm not so sure about that... reminds me of the famous IBM prediction for computers when each one was the size of a large room ... "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943

And for his time, he was right. Back then, computers were very limited in functionality, they needed people to double-check the work, and they were unreasonably costly. Computers weren't really a marketable item until they could run without vacuum tubes, handle larger digits, and weren't so delicate. There are many other quotes that seem ridiculous but were right for their time. The "640K ought to be enough for anyone" (which BTW, was not said by Bill Gates) was also true for its time. The average person legitimately didn't need any more than that. Back then, PCs were mostly used to write documents and do simple math. Of course once PCs got a GUI and became more than glorified word processors or oversized pocket calculators, that's when 640K quickly became irrelevant.

tsunami231:

when do i get quantum computers for personal use? till then irrelevant to be interesting news none the less

I find this statement very narrow-minded. Just because it isn't something you can buy yourself, doesn't mean it isn't relevant or interesting. Should quantum servers succeed, I'm sure life as we know it will change (much in the same way binary computers did). The level of compute power and what can be done with it is indescribable. I don't think quantum computers will ever see their way into people's homes. They're functionally too different to obsolete CPUs as we know them. I think it's possible we might get quantum expansion cards, but even then, I don't know what the average person would need such a thing for. And I didn't even get into the logistical issues, like how they're currently very picky about operation conditions.

I see quantum computers getting use as terminal servers for gaming over the internet without a PC. Imagine how many users it can service with very high quality gfx, physics etc. Could be the death knell for a major section of gaming PCs.

Mufflore:

I see quantum computers getting use as terminal servers for gaming over the internet without a PC. Imagine how many users it can service with very high quality gfx, physics etc. Could be the death knell for a major section of gaming PCs.

I don't think it's particularly difficult or expensive for modern servers to handle games. They don't have to handle anything especially complex, they just have to address a lot of people at the same time. I imagine the server's internal networks are a greater limitation. However... I could imagine quantum computers being useful for challenging and self-learning computer players.

@schmidtbag the irrelevant part still stand till they actual have a quantum computer which they do not yet it dont mater, unlike what certain "trumps" are claiming they all been saying this and thought about quantum computer for decade and how they manage to do this and that, but there still isnt one atlest not one publicly acknowledged

schmidtbag:

I don't think it's particularly difficult or expensive for modern servers to handle games. They don't have to handle anything especially complex, they just have to address a lot of people at the same time. I imagine the server's internal networks are a greater limitation. However... I could imagine quantum computers being useful for challenging and self-learning computer players.

I mean single player with high end gfx served. Bots would still be required and would likely improve over the PC experience but the game state for each player would be very different and require more independent processing. There are servers doing similar but not with high end gfx, limited game selection + amount of users. My point is how many users/games a quantum computer could handle to effectively replace a large % of gaming PCs on a subscription basis or to rent the use of.

tsunami231:

the irrelevant part still stand till they actual have a quantum computer which they do not yet it dont mater, unlike what certain "trumps" are claiming they all been saying this and thought about quantum computer for decade and how they manage to do this and that, but there still isnt one atlest not one publicly acknowledged[/USER]

I'm confused... there are several quantum computers publicly acknowledged. D-Wave even has commercially available quantum computers (and Google has been working with D-Wave). Whether or not they are "quantumly supreme" is a different story, but, the point is functioning quantum computers do exist, they're just very limited and their true potential has yet to be achieved. EDIT: So, it is still very much relevant, in the same way the transistor was. Transistors didn't become microscopic and speedy overnight.

are there now when did this happen? either way limited functionality mean it still dont matter. I get the parallel/same time processing is a game changer vs having to do in order. But beyond that agree to disagree and leave it at that

tsunami231:

are there now when did this happen?

Yes, these have existed for several years and have been used for real-world work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems#Computer_systems Granted, those haven't really proved to be better than "conventional" computers (not really worse either) but again, this is all still very early stages. We can't expect "supremacy" yet. Humanity is successfully experimenting with a category of physics we don't even fully understand yet, and in doing so, we're starting to open the doors to a new future. How is that not remarkable and important? If this is irrelevant, what do you make of the moon landing? If you felt that was irrelevant, what's the purpose of anything we do in life if improving, exploring, and expanding doesn't matter? Why settle for adequacy (or mediocrity, in some cases)?

either way limited functionality mean it still dont matter. I get the parallel/same time processing is a game changer vs having to do in order.

I'm confused... you said yourself what quantum computers can be a game changer. Your own words say it isn't irrelevant.

But beyond that agree to disagree and leave it at that

It's one thing if you said "this is irrelevant to me", which is fine; I wouldn't have even replied to that because I don't argue with people's preferences. But to generalize quantum computers as all-around irrelevant is something I have a real hard time wrapping my head around.

like said parallel processing can be game changer but its still not practical. not from cost stand point or use.

tsunami231:

like said parallel processing can be game changer but its still not practical. not from cost stand point or use.

Tell that to all the BOINC projects, universities, and major datacenters. Quantum computers could replace mainframes as we know them. We're not there yet, but we're getting there.

I guess now would be a good time to point out that the world being a sphere is communist Russia propaganda trying to lead us to believe that the moon landing never happened. Oh yeah and climate change was orchestrated by Mussolini or whatever; think about it long enough and it'll totally make sense, I swear. Wake up, sheeple! Spread the truth! Screw math and emperical data! Believe what's most convenient for YOU and your political agenda! Your understanding of subjects after 10 minutes of "research" from "experts" is irrefutable, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise! And remember this important piece of wisdom I have to offer: if something doesn't make sense to you, that's because whoever thought of the idea was stupid.

LIGuitar77:

By the way, do you inherently trust Nazis? (Real ones, not SJW ones.) They, as part of IBM, are the only ones ever to show "proof" that atoms even exist in the first place. A cartoon. Yes, a CARTOON. The ONLY proof. A cartoon. Now let me ask: Do YOU believe atoms exist for real as we learned in school? Why? (No sidetracking. Scientifically, why, without using Nazi proof.)

Do I believe that atoms exist as we were taught in school. No because the general model of an atom as taught to and still viewed by many people is the Bohr Model, which is simple enough to give people a rough idea of what an atom is meant to look like (in theory) however it neglects to tell people that atoms, how they actually look is based purely on a combination of applied calculation and clever theory. That we theorize the quantum state of electrons with in atoms because we simply cannot as yet measure them. That the act of measuring or mapping them results in the you changing the value of the thing you are measuring. For most folk that is a concept that goes a bit above most their head and given that our theorizing and calculating of these electron quantum energy states has allowed us to discover elements within the periodic table before actually physically finding those elements means that at least some aspects of what we know, calculated and theorized are correct. Not really sure what the rest of the Nazi BS conspiracy theory non sense was meant to be about though.