1. I just built a quantum computer.

unfortunately i can't show you as it doesn't work under observation.

leaving poor quality jokes aside, can someone explain to me the theory behind a quantum computer

2.

3. The whole thing is built around the qubit. While I don't know the details exactly, the important property is that of superposition. If a bit can be 1 or 0, a qubit can be both 1 and 0 in infinitely many combinations. (The part I don't exactly understand is how you set up your desired superposition.)

Once the qubit is in the state you want, you can measure it. Doing so collapses the superposition and gives you either a 1 or a 0 randomly. This may not sound particularly useful, but since the particular superposition controls the probability of each result (not just for each qubit individually either), you can repeat the process 20 times or so to be very sure of the answer. (Unfortunately, never quite 100%. That's the trade-off.)

Maybe someone else can fill in some more of the details, or possibly give a high-level overview of an example.

4. Originally Posted by organic god
I just built a quantum computer.

unfortunately i can't show you as it doesn't work under observation.

leaving poor quality jokes aside, can someone explain to me the theory behind a quantum computer

I would think it is a bit of undigested food. Poison mushrooms, something like that.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

5. there was an excellent article in scientific american on this.
Apparently we are very far along. They said in that article that there are no real forseable obstacles for us to overcome, we have all the technology now, and we just need to build it.

I think some promising designs use entanglement, and something else with ions.

Here is the article, although not as nice without all the pictures
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ting-with-ions

BTW, I think all quantum computers require entanglement. IIRC, it's one of the key properties that is responsible for the increase in power over normal computers.

7. I have read about designs that claimed to be quantum computing that did not utilize entanglement. One dealt with a means to individually switch atoms on the quantum level in order to store data 1000's of times finer than before. In other words, instead of 1 bit representing hundreds of thousands of atoms, it can only represent 1 atom, with the atom next to it being in a completely different and fully readable state. I also recently read about a great scientific achievement: Detecting a particle, namely a photon, without destroying it! A few physicists took "super conducting mirrors" and passed a microwave signal through them. Upon temporarily absorbing an atom, these microwaves detect the change in nuclear resonance caused by the electron state change. This allowed them to detect a single photon around a million times! before it commenced a quantum jump (not sure why though?). This could be used in tangent with a glass data acquisition resonance system and QE to create a very very very powerful quantum computer. We will soon be gaming at 10,000X 5,000 res and 300fps!

8. Well, the first part isn't a quantum computer. It's just very, very good data storage technology. I'm pretty sure the requirements to execute a quantum algorithm are superposition and entanglement. Without those, a quantum computer wouldn't be much different from an ordinary computer.

9. Originally Posted by Perillux
there was an excellent article in scientific american on this.
Apparently we are very far along. They said in that article that there are no real forseable obstacles for us to overcome, we have all the technology now, and we just need to build it.

Mhmmmmmm....thats why Apple is announcing the new "Q"-MAc to come out next spring.

10. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
I have read about designs that claimed to be quantum computing that did not utilize entanglement.
There are quatum computers--mostly theoretical--and quantum scale computers that are entirely different devices. The terminology that is used to designate what I'm calling a 'quatum scale computer' evades me.

11. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
I have read about designs that claimed to be quantum computing that did not utilize entanglement.
There are quatum computers--mostly theoretical--and quantum scale computers. These are entirely different devices. The terminology that is commonly used to identify what I'm calling a 'quatum scale computer' evades me.

12. Originally Posted by organic god
... leaving poor quality jokes aside, can someone explain to me the theory behind a quantum computer
The most important attributes of a quatum computer are that you can store superpositions of classical bits, and operate on all the superpostions at once.

If that sounds confusing don't worry.

Say you have a 4 bit register. It can contain values from 0 to 15 decimal: In binary 0000, 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100, 0101, etc.

A quatum computer stores all of them in one 4 qubit register all at the same time.

A digital computer might take two registers and add them together and get a single result. A quantum computer, given the means, can add all possible values in each register with all possible values in the other register.

You're might be asking, "what good is that?" But you don't have to mix all 16 values of one register with all 16 values of the other. A 4 qubit register doen't have to contain all 16 values. There are ways to produce subsets of the full set of 16, and also single valued registers.

Now imagine you have two 500 bit registers. You add all 2^500 states to the other 2^500 states all at once. So quatum computers are good for parallel processing on an unprecedented scale.

In practicality, the're few algorthims that can use the kind of paralellism that quatum computers could supply, but in the arenas of cracking or protecting public-key prime number codes it's a big issue.

13. Originally Posted by ought
Originally Posted by organic god
... leaving poor quality jokes aside, can someone explain to me the theory behind a quantum computer
The most important attributes of a quatum computer are that you can store superpositions of classical bits, and operate on all the superpostions at once.

If that sounds confusing don't worry.

Say you have a 4 bit register. It can contain values from 0 to 15 decimal: In binary 0000, 0001, 0010, 0011, 0100, 0101, etc.

A quatum computer stores all of them in one 4 qubit register all at the same time.

A digital computer might take two registers and add them together and get a single result. A quantum computer, given the means, can add all possible values in each register with all possible values in the other register.

Now imagine you have two 500 bit registers. You add all 2^500 states to the other 2^500 states all at once. So quatum computers are good for parallel processing on an unprecedented scale.

In practicality, the're few algorthims that can use the kind of paralellism that quatum computers could supply, but in the arenas of cracking or protecting public-key prime number codes it's a big issue.

14. Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
Originally Posted by Perillux
there was an excellent article in scientific american on this.
Apparently we are very far along. They said in that article that there are no real forseable obstacles for us to overcome, we have all the technology now, and we just need to build it.

Mhmmmmmm....thats why Apple is announcing the new "Q"-MAc to come out next spring.
They are getting near infinitely small now. Smaller still and you will get strange effects from static electricity. Radio waves.

That some computers already suffer from. There is not enough mass, to keep a small static charge from, opening a gate now. I would be the first to admit it is the light weight frames of the computer. In a rack you can achieve more protection. However it is the weight of the metal, and the fact it is tied to an earth ground, that keeps them safer.

I do not see much need for more and smaller computing power. I see a need to standardize, and create faster safer algorithms for what we have.

So few people really use their computers now. I mean some surf. Most get viruses. Never saving what they wanted to save. Very few actually use them to their potential.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

15. As a person who all of his time working on a computer, I can tell you that we need both better algorithms and faster computers. I can also tell you that static electricity may be a problem for computer parts (they sell anti-static bracelets for working on computers), but it's not the big one standing in the way of miniaturization. Honestly, I'd say heat is a bigger problem than static, though still not the biggest.

Oh yeah, from what I understand, entanglement is the property that allows the creation of a quantum register from single qubits.

16. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
As a person who all of his time working on a computer, I can tell you that we need both better algorithms and faster computers. I can also tell you that static electricity may be a problem for computer parts (they sell anti-static bracelets for working on computers), but it's not the big one standing in the way of miniaturization. Honestly, I'd say heat is a bigger problem than static, though still not the biggest.

Oh yeah, from what I understand, entanglement is the property that allows the creation of a quantum register from single qubits.
If you understand a computer, you would understand that it is a storage device. Remembering on and off. Nothing more.

When we write programs, the programs only tell the computer, to remember on and off in a different way. Anything other then exactly and precisely remembering on and off. And you have a flawed computer.

A comparator, is a device/system that compares on and off states, from two portions of memory, that have been stored. And creates new and often abbreviated, on and off states, representing the old ones, that can be compared with more efficiency .

Because computers are subject to failure, it is safer and actually gives a more accurate result by actual testing. To turn large objects into abbreviated objects, using a code. Doing this for both objects and then comparing the abbreviation.

In a way the code magnifies any difference at the bit level. Just like a comparator does in machining.

Doing a bit to bit comparator operation, would probably take more time and create more chance for error.

The computer does not think. It cannot guess, it can only use a random like algorithm to pick from predefined choices. Some are very good.

You could throw your choices in a hat, and pick one and get the same or better results. Because of the infinite variables in the paper, the hat and your picking. The computer cannot actually be truly random or it is broken.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

17. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
As a person who all of his time working on a computer, I can tell you that we need both better algorithms and faster computers. I can also tell you that static electricity may be a problem for computer parts (they sell anti-static bracelets for working on computers), but it's not the big one standing in the way of miniaturization. Honestly, I'd say heat is a bigger problem than static, though still not the biggest.

Oh yeah, from what I understand, entanglement is the property that allows the creation of a quantum register from single qubits.
I look at things in a military way. In other words when I think of a computer, I am thinking of it functioning in space during a war. Heat is not a problem actually. I believe the lower voltage higher amperage they use is the problem.

I believe the Cyrix chip people had the heat beat with higher voltage. But they were attacked. And some claimed them to be an enemy of the computer industry.

So many today are trying to miniaturize, when to be honest that is not an important issue in my opinion. We have plenty of power already and sometimes the devices are too small. The ratio of smaller components possible, is reaching an infinite end.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

18. William, I can debate with you on math because your ideas aren't completely wrong. I can debate with you on physics because I'm a little cloudy on some of the fine details myself. But I can tell you that when it comes to computers you don't know the first thing about them.

A computer is not simply memory. A lot of its physical space is taken up by various storage devices, true. But what it does with those bits is apply boolean logic to them. Do you have any idea what an XOR gate is, or an ALU, or even a CPU?

BTW, Cyrix did not solve any heat issues. They were attacked by another company trying to monopolize that particular industry. And they did make 5V chips, but so did a lot of other people. They mainly failed because they brough they technology to the market too late.

There's no conspiracy as to why heat is still an obstacle to overcome. There are ways around it already, but they are mostly untested in real world applications and there's no market incentive to start production.

19. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
William, I can debate with you on math because your ideas aren't completely wrong. I can debate with you on physics because I'm a little cloudy on some of the fine details myself. But I can tell you that when it comes to computers you don't know the first thing about them.

A computer is not simply memory. A lot of its physical space is taken up by various storage devices, true. But what it does with those bits is apply boolean logic to them. Do you have any idea what an XOR gate is, or an ALU, or even a CPU?

BTW, Cyrix did not solve any heat issues. They were attacked by another company trying to monopolize that particular industry. And they did make 5V chips, but so did a lot of other people. They mainly failed because they brough they technology to the market too late.

There's no conspiracy as to why heat is still an obstacle to overcome. There are ways around it already, but they are mostly untested in real world applications and there's no market incentive to start production.

A computer is simply memory. It performs tasks upon the memory. Nothing more can be asked of a computer. Nor should it be asked of a computer. It is a total slave. It cannot think or create.

Just like the old mechanical calculators. With no electronics.

I was a mathematician in the fifth grade, and my school purchased a main frame for our school. Marcy Scher and myself, were the only two that I know of that were allowed to work on it at the time. That is when the discs were large and needed to be refrigerated. And the terminals were teletype machines. Noisy and they smelled like oil.

In the forth grade we had studied the workings of the math routine of the main processor.

I used to build basic logic circuits with relays and "on" "off" sensors. Most have no idea how simple logic is. Or how few relays (on and off switches) you need. To get complex tasks done.
You would think there is a complex computer in the machine. But actually just a few relays. It is "if" "then" "else" programing. With the use of electrically latching relays (fallout relays). Which are a form of memory.

I am not much on the terminology, when I started in electronics, they called transistors triacs. I have gotten into hundred post debates about this. It is true. I built a radio with a single triac. You could call it a transistor radio. But the actual device was called a triac.

So nothing has changed really except the conventions.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

20. Relays and transistors do the same job. Transistors are just smaller, simpler and more reliable.

True, it doesn't take many to make something fairly complex, but honestly, you still have no idea what a computer is all about. Let me come over and take your CPU away. You'll still have all the memory in your computer, but you won't be able to do anything with it. Come to that, let me come break your spine. Your brain's still got all it's memory, you just won't be able to act on it.

You may have used a computer, but not really.

On top of all of that, a quantum computer is not just "on" and "off" anymore. It doesn't work with relays or transistors. It's something completely new. It just uses some of the same terminology and some of the same ideas to make it easier to deal with. I smile thinking of the day when outdated people like you are left behind with the sands of time. I scowl when I think about how long that'll take.

21. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
I smile thinking of the day when outdated people like you are left behind with the sands of time. I scowl when I think about how long that'll take.
Till the end of the world. Because nothing has advanced since the early nineteen hundreds.

Computers are nearly useless to average folk that could actually make use of them. Sharing information and old books and pictures with all.

Try to scan and publish a book. By the time you are done you need a server farm, insanely complex and problematic to handle HTML with frames or Iframes. Depending on who you talk to one or both, are either to complex or out of date.

PDF's are also problematic. Often creating huge files.

Most ordinary hard working intelligent individuals see the basic flaws in the Internet and with computers, and just walk away. Rightly so. I enjoy sticking it to the law makers where it hurts, so I spend the extra time. Ha-ha.

Most scientists waste their computers calculating nonsense. You have no idea what I can do with a computer. Mine has a 133 MH front side buss. It is a 1.88 GH Pentium 4. And I can calculate whatever there is on earth to calculate with it. There is nothing I could not build with it. The only thing that makes it a bit faster and versatile is the ATI all in Wonder video card.

This computer does everything you could ever want from a computer. Ha-ha

It is getting old though. I will have to get a new one soon. I can hear the hard drives, are getting a little loose. It takes me about four years to get it setup though. By the time I get it setup, it is obsolete. Ha-ha.

http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Spel...llCatcher2.htm

This is an interesting program, in the movie. It is Spell Catcher. It has short hand and spell checking where ever you are. Kind of like the MAC. It is a key logger but I like them. But this old Power Spec, computer has enough speed, to record the screen and work many other programs simultaneously.

But I use Cadd and other programs all at once and record the screen at the same time.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

22. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Try to scan and publish a book. By the time you are done you need a server farm, insanely complex and problematic to handle HTML with frames or Iframes. Depending on who you talk to one or both, are either to complex or out of date.
I can see why you'd think that using an old clunker of a computer like you've got. The truth, though, is that none of what you said is remotely difficult. I admit that HTML frames are a little weird, but that has nothing to do with computing power. I can easily store an entire library worth of books in either PDF, DOC or any other format you can name on a \$100 hard drive. I can store a decent collection of books in PDF on a \$5 thumb drive, if you even know what a thumb drive is.

Face it William, the world has moved on, and you're afraid it's left you behind, and rightly so.

23. Good day everyone,
I'm sorry, I need to ask whether or not quantum computers demand a special storage medium to function properly? Sounds like that's the case.

Steve

24. Correct. Just as normal computers store bits in various ways (CD, hard drive, RAM, etc.) a quantum computer could store qubits in various ways. I'm not too familiar with all the details on this myself, but check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit#P...representation.

25. MagiMaster,

please forgive me, like a certain kind of hdd or there like I meant. Does the storage device needs to be invented still? : )

I think I remember to have read an article in a printed magazine once saying that it would be difficult to find the data again after they have benn stored. The author described a crystal or crystal like structure, which had to be mounted into the computer denying for the data to be retrieved. The crystal had to float or swivel, therefore.

But, now, I think the article was about a super duper amount of data to be stored not about a quantum computer. Sorry.

But, anyway, when the data was stored on a quantum computer, how will they be retrieved for times faster than on conventional pc's?

Steve

26. There's nothing that says a qubit can be retrieved fast that a bit, and really I doubt they would be. It's just that a qubit is worth a lot more information-wise. Anyway, qubits will have to be stored in some physical representation (thus the link) so basically, yes, quantum hard drives haven't been invented yet. I wonder if they will be any time soon though. It may be much more practical to only store the instructions for setting up desired superposition, rather than attempting to store the superposition directly. I imagine that eventually some one will work it out, but I think quantum computers will have been around a while by then.

27. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Try to scan and publish a book. By the time you are done you need a server farm, insanely complex and problematic to handle HTML with frames or Iframes. Depending on who you talk to one or both, are either to complex or out of date.
I can see why you'd think that using an old clunker of a computer like you've got. The truth, though, is that none of what you said is remotely difficult. I admit that HTML frames are a little weird, but that has nothing to do with computing power. I can easily store an entire library worth of books in either PDF, DOC or any other format you can name on a \$100 hard drive. I can store a decent collection of books in PDF on a \$5 thumb drive, if you even know what a thumb drive is.

Face it William, the world has moved on, and you're afraid it's left you behind, and rightly so.
I have a few thumb drives, they are not that reliable unless you purchase an expensive one.

I have a thumb drive security key, that is rather stable though, and built much stronger then the plain storage type.

Any one of them could be destroyed while plugged into the computer. Poor design actually. Like they just thought it up and went with it. Any one of them could also wipeout the USB port.

If I touch a computer with a 16"x16" 22 gauge piece of sheet metal in my hands, and I am statically charged. I can reboot the computer. Even if it is grounded well.

I have worked in server farm sights. And I am careful of this.

They also do not allow beverages inside the server rooms. Because accidents could occur.

If I knock my computer off the desk onto the floor, while running or not, I could lose my data on the hard drive.

Many years ago in the eighties. There was a computer called the brick. I did not have one and they probably were not the end all of the world.
However their basic premise was that they were literally indestructible. They were working on ROM drives at the time, to make them even more stable.

Scan in a whole book and tell me if computers are going anywhere. Computers could easily scan in book pages, correct the pages rotation automatically. You can even use an expensive, but common computer and scanner package for the test.

It should crop to a default or input default specification. Especially for smaller books that are scanned two pages at a time. And either send it to a directory numbered, in a predefined format, size and quality. Or add it to a special type of file for viewing books over the Internet.
It would take a decent programer that programs everyday for a living, working with the poor computer languages and operating systems, maybe a week to program it.

So a whole generation has gone buy that will not be buying scanners and computers because they sucked. No one thinks the system out. They treat the computer like the computer is a useless peace of junk, proven by the quality of the total package they create.

Are there some professional or inhouse scanner systems that might do this? I would think so. But I do not find them around.

Then there is the problem of publishing it on the Internet. It would probably be best, if the individual pages loaded as you needed them. Or loaded when traffic subsided as you were reading the previous page.

You can do this with Java Script, PHP, Pearl or basic. But to me, all are like reinventing the wheel. And many require certain, permissions from your browser. So you cut out a lot of workers.

HTML should have done this as job one.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

28. It'd take me a day to do most of that with a cheap scanner and a cheap computer. I have much better things to do with my time, so don't bother trying to goad me into proving myself on this one. (The software that comes with my cheap scanner already does half that. All I'd need to do is to write a program to coordinate filenames and formats.)

As far as things that can mess up a computer... duh! Common desktops aren't built to be manhandled. Other computers are, but they cost more. That's simple business sense.

As far as your ideas about what HTML should do, that's not at all what it was designed for. Tell me, do you actually know what HTML stands for? HyperText Markup Language. Do you know what hypertext is? I'll give you a hint. It's something you won't find in a book. (And "permissions from the browser" as you say would be all of the security bits that were added in response to people taking advantage of the lack of security.)

29. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
There's nothing that says a qubit can be retrieved fast that a bit, and really I doubt they would be. It's just that a qubit is worth a lot more information-wise. Anyway, qubits will have to be stored in some physical representation (thus the link) so basically, yes, quantum hard drives haven't been invented yet. I wonder if they will be any time soon though. It may be much more practical to only store the instructions for setting up desired superposition, rather than attempting to store the superposition directly. I imagine that eventually some one will work it out, but I think quantum computers will have been around a while by then.
The computers 0's and 1's kept me pondering for a while. For what I think the only true state was 1. Since 1 does say yes there was an electrical signal at this moment at this very place. So I think this was like a unit. Each other integer would be saying the same. And, if folks now start trying to take the binary system back to ordinary mathematics. What's this gonna be? Like which other merger of 0's and 1's besides the present binary 'translation' could be construed still meaning, yes there was an electrical signal, and, therefore, the computer systems still be working?

It really kept me pondering for a while. : )

In behalf of the better understanding, 0 I think could mean no, no signal, or even it's broken.
From there I think 0 was not an equal opposite state.

Steve

30. 1 and 0 are just two sides of a coin. There's no inherent meaning to them. Yes, high voltage (above 3.3 volts, say) is usually taken to be equal to 1, and low voltage (below 0.5 volts, or something) is taken to be equal to 0, but that's just convention. In a hard drive it's different directions of magnetic particles. In a CD it's the height of bumps. Etc.

A qubit is something completely different. It still only gives back either 1 or 0 (again, just two sides of the same coin, as in spin-up or spin-down, etc.) but it stores both at once. An even superposition (I forget the correct term) of 1 and 0 will give either a 1 or a 0 with a 50/50 chance when measured. You can set up a superposition to give back 1 and 0 with any chance from 0/100 to 100/0. This may not sound very useful, but combined with entanglement, it can be.

31. So so, it stores both at ones?

32. computers are evil

33. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
1 and 0 are just two sides of a coin. There's no inherent meaning to them. Yes, high voltage (above 3.3 volts, say) is usually taken to be equal to 1, and low voltage (below 0.5 volts, or something) is taken to be equal to 0, but that's just convention. In a hard drive it's different directions of magnetic particles. In a CD it's the height of bumps. Etc.

A qubit is something completely different. It still only gives back either 1 or 0 (again, just two sides of the same coin, as in spin-up or spin-down, etc.) but it stores both at once. An even superposition (I forget the correct term) of 1 and 0 will give either a 1 or a 0 with a 50/50 chance when measured. You can set up a superposition to give back 1 and 0 with any chance from 0/100 to 100/0. This may not sound very useful, but combined with entanglement, it can be.
I have a light switch that uses body resistance to turn the lights on and off. After a thunderstorm, it could be on or off on its own. So all I would need is entanglement and I could control my lighting again? Ha-ha.

Obviously if a register is both on and off at the same time, it is useless. A computer is only a memory storage device. It cannot benefit from anything, but faster register storing and retrieval.

This whole quantum computer is just more hype. They cannot perform simple tasks with military precision, with an abundance of computing power. But they are off to create a computer that can make mistakes. Hey, then they could blame their lame schemes on the computer. I like it. I never would have thought of that. Ha-ha.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

34. Shut it William. You may understand that computers use 1s and 0s for storage, but that's it. You understand absolutely nothing else about computers, how they work or how to use them. All you can do is repeat yourself. Like I said, let me come over there and break your CPU or your spine. You obviously don't need them since your or your computer's memory is the only thing that's important.

@Stuart: Yes. A qubit stores both a 1 and a 0 in superposition. When measured though, it will only give either a 1 or a 0. Which it gives is random, but the probability can be controlled. By itself, a single qubit wouldn't be that interesting. (I'd still like to have one as a source of truly random numbers though.) What gets interesting are quantum registers. These entangle several qubits into one kind-of-super-qubit.

With two bits, you can have four possible outcomes: 00, 01, 10 and 11. With a two qubit quantum register, you get all four at once. When measured, you'll only get one answer though and it'll be one of those four randomly, but the probability of which you get is controllable. How you control them to make useful algorithms is a very interesting topic, which I, unfortunately, don't know enough about. I'd really like to learn though.

35. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
@Stuart: Yes. A qubit stores both a 1 and a 0 in superposition.
That wasn't me, it was steve.

36. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Shut it William. You may understand that computers use 1s and 0s for storage, but that's it. You understand absolutely nothing else about computers, how they work or how to use them. All you can do is repeat yourself. Like I said, let me come over there and break your CPU or your spine. You obviously don't need them since your or your computer's memory is the only thing that's important.

@Stuart: Yes. A qubit stores both a 1 and a 0 in superposition. When measured though, it will only give either a 1 or a 0. Which it gives is random, but the probability can be controlled. By itself, a single qubit wouldn't be that interesting. (I'd still like to have one as a source of truly random numbers though.) What gets interesting are quantum registers. These entangle several qubits into one kind-of-super-qubit.

With two bits, you can have four possible outcomes: 00, 01, 10 and 11. With a two qubit quantum register, you get all four at once. When measured, you'll only get one answer though and it'll be one of those four randomly, but the probability of which you get is controllable. How you control them to make useful algorithms is a very interesting topic, which I, unfortunately, don't know enough about. I'd really like to learn though.
The rest of the computer takes a very precisely stored on or off code, and manipulates it, through an algorithm. Just like an old mechanical adding machine with no electricity. Just more complex. Nothing to get overly excited about. If I see more quality, I will get a little excited.

I don't need more change/complication when they don't even have a good computer language. And complete tables of information about the operating system. Neatly and concisely laid out for all. The whole operation is some kind of fifth world wet dream.

Most people do not know what bad habits, of information manipulation are being developed by very poor programers and computer builders. Years ago they could do many things faster without computers, with many less individuals. Making many more useful things for American citizens with less effort. Then they do today with computers.

Because people like you that don't know how to use your computer, are hoping there is something knew and wonderful in computers to turn up your interests.

It is not coming. Computers are little tools for speeding daily tasks in life. They are not going to unlock the secrets of the universe for you. Living will though.

If you use a computer to expedite storage and retrieval of information great. If you use it to store measurements and check interaction of a device you are building great. No big deal, we have the power to do that already. I have been doing it for over twenty years.

If this device is doing all that for you. It should be the best device possible. But "q" bits are not going to help.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

37. What in the world is a "q" bit? I've certainly never heard of it. A qubit, on the other hand, has been built and tested (over 10 years ago now).

Originally Posted by William McCormick
The rest of the computer takes a very precisely stored on or off code, and manipulates it, through an algorithm. Just like an old mechanical adding machine with no electricity. Just more complex. Nothing to get overly excited about. If I see more quality, I will get a little excited.
Just more complex. Just roughly 10,000,000,000,000 times more complex. (Though I might be short-changing computers by a few orders of magnitude.) Faster, better and cheaper, what more do you want? It's not going to do magic.

Anyway, you admit that there's more to a computer than just storing the bits. That's a start at least.

Originally Posted by William McCormick
Because people like you that don't know how to use your computer, are hoping there is something knew and wonderful in computers to turn up your interests.
Not to be immodest, but if I don't know how to use a computer, no one does, including you. I've only been programming and otherwise using a computer since I was 4 (that's over 20 total years now). I'm not waiting for something new and wonderful in computing, though I am actively trying to create something new (though I wouldn't call it wonderful).

Quantum computing though is not something new in computing, it's something altogether new. That is exciting. It's a shame you have nothing to be excited about.

Originally Posted by William McCormick
I don't need more change/complication when they don't even have a good computer language. And complete tables of information about the operating system. Neatly and concisely laid out for all. The whole operation is some kind of fifth world wet dream.
So in other words, you can't do it. Just say so already.

38. Originally Posted by ought
computers are evil

Did your computer say that too?

http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/angr...ngrymrbill.htm

Sincerely,

William McCormick

39. How does a quantum computer (processor) bus data? I mean, realistically, it's going to be a massive tangle of equipment, cradling the ittiest bittiest processors ever. Can we beam optical buses through it?

40. Actually, that's where current research is at the moment. No one's quite sure how to do that, at least not concretely. Someone had posted a link to a Scientific American article about just that, but I forgot where.

41. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
It'd take me a day to do most of that with a cheap scanner and a cheap computer. I have much better things to do with my time, so don't bother trying to goad me into proving myself on this one. (The software that comes with my cheap scanner already does half that. All I'd need to do is to write a program to coordinate filenames and formats.)

As far as things that can mess up a computer... duh! Common desktops aren't built to be manhandled. Other computers are, but they cost more. That's simple business sense.

As far as your ideas about what HTML should do, that's not at all what it was designed for. Tell me, do you actually know what HTML stands for? HyperText Markup Language. Do you know what hypertext is? I'll give you a hint. It's something you won't find in a book. (And "permissions from the browser" as you say would be all of the security bits that were added in response to people taking advantage of the lack of security.)
I do not know what compiler you use, or what operating system you are talking about. However if you actually try to do the task you will rather write the program.

And when you go to write the program, you will want to change the compiler, language or operating system.

Because of the undocumented, incorrect information in the manuals for the language, operating system and compiler. Some of it is admittedly done to knock out small companies and individuals. You can get a full refund of all the software, but you may not be able to write the program you want, and have it operate the way you wish it to.

You can also see some of the lack of functionality, caused by the operating system. It causes confusion dangerous overhead that allows for errors. As well as making it easy to screw up tasks that should be simple.

I have been using computers since 1971-1972, I do not see any improvement they have made in living. At all. If anything they have cheapened life. They have allowed errors to be part and parcel of doing anything in life.
Any profit or good that could have come from computers is, taxed or taken out by cheapening them. Often they just hold functionality as a hostage.

Most people in computers if they are any good, have nasty jobs. Poor working conditions because they are working with junk. To much stress, to much failure. To many changes. They are just fancy slaves wasting time and life.

If you look at postal workers. They come in early go home late. They work hard. They hand sort all that mail they deliver, when it comes into their station. They work on a 99 second and minute time system. They work hard.

Yet the post office just spent tons of money, on scanners that postal workers have to use at two different points on their stop, to let the post office know where they are at different points on their route. To try to give them bigger work loads.

Now some may feel that life is so cheap and unhappy for them that they want this same ball and chain for postal workers. Who are usually happy and smiling, as they battle dogs, and even four foot tall wild Turkeys on occasion.
My point is that profits that the post office was known to make, and known as the only branch of government that actually made money for its citizens. Went and bought useless, dangerous systems, that do not deliver mail.

That is what computer types are selling today. The magic bullet, the solution to all the scum we are surrounded by, that want to steel from us, every second of everyday.

The computer people are just covering up that they never did their job. By accusing almost everyone else of not doing their job.

Systems that could get a good postal worker, more interested in his job then scanning the stupid checkpoint, fired. It is a totally inhuman system, that is not designed for humans.

Depending on when you check the guys times, he might have great times. On bad days or certain days he might need more time, then he already has. But someone back at the office is going to use two check points to change a job he knows nothing about?

Computers are cheapening life.

I understand the idea of HTML to limit access of the host computer, to the other persons computer, through the browser software. And Visa Versa. It is in books.

Was it idiotic? Sure. But it was designed by the defense department of the "United States", and there was no American defense department after the sixties. Just a red tape, monster. Scheming of ways to get more money and power. It was started as DARPA, by the defense department, the NSF and some Universities. You can see it is nothing though, very poorly thought out.

There is no way to protect computer data. And what was actually feared is that the schemes they had created and stored on the computers could be accessed, tallied and a real picture of the evil they had done could be presented with some intelligence or iron clad proof.

It was probably just a way to slow the transfer of information. Make it more difficult to transfer. A way to go through it and remove certain painful bits of information.

I used to transfer much more and better information all over, much faster, with modems that worked much slower. And the other computer could not access my computer, except through the modem. Which could be monitored and shut down. You could open files on a computer with no ties to the outside world. After you downloaded it. Or download it and checked it on a computer that had ties to the outside world.

The problem was that the people in my group already knew what I knew. So there was no reason to transfer much of that type of information.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

42. William, I don't see how in the world your brain could be so screwed up. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a baby or something? Do you really believe that no progress has been made over the last 40 years in computing or its applications?

Do you really think car safety (seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc.) have nothing to do with computers, both those used to record and analyze crash tests and those in the cars themselves used to deploy the various safety devices?

In medicine, do you think x-ray photography, MRI, CAT, EKG, etc. could exist without computers?

And no, you don't have a clue what HTML is. First, HTML itself has nothing to do with access rights or security. That's HTTP, among other things. HTML is the language web pages are written in. It's what allows links to be placed into a body of text, again, among other things.

William, you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of basic knowledge when it comes to computers. You really should stop talking before you actually swallow your foot.

You say you have been working with computers since 1971. I'd say you've been working with computers from 1971. I don't disagree that modern operating systems can be, at times, crap to work with, but that's about it. Nothing else you've said is even remotely true. There is absolutely no way you can change my mind on this. Unlike physics, in computing, I know for a fact just how wrong you are, and just how little you actually know.

Go on, write a few lines of functioning code and I might believe that you've actually touched a computer other than to type crap in forums.

43. Hmmm.

It has been said that the British government is proposing to record and analyse every single sms text message and email sent in the country. How I wonder would they be able to accomplish this feat if the GCHQ did not already have a secret quantum computer already at their disposal. That is some food for thought.

44. A decent supercomputer could handle that. Quantum computers aren't faster in that sense. They're faster in the sense that there are some problems that just can't be done (in a certain sense) without them. Storing and analyzing such data isn't really one of those problems, at least as far as I know.

45. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
William, I don't see how in the world your brain could be so screwed up. Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a baby or something? Do you really believe that no progress has been made over the last 40 years in computing or its applications?

Do you really think car safety (seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc.) have nothing to do with computers, both those used to record and analyze crash tests and those in the cars themselves used to deploy the various safety devices?

In medicine, do you think x-ray photography, MRI, CAT, EKG, etc. could exist without computers?

And no, you don't have a clue what HTML is. First, HTML itself has nothing to do with access rights or security. That's HTTP, among other things. HTML is the language web pages are written in. It's what allows links to be placed into a body of text, again, among other things.

William, you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of basic knowledge when it comes to computers. You really should stop talking before you actually swallow your foot.

You say you have been working with computers since 1971. I'd say you've been working with computers from 1971. I don't disagree that modern operating systems can be, at times, crap to work with, but that's about it. Nothing else you've said is even remotely true. There is absolutely no way you can change my mind on this. Unlike physics, in computing, I know for a fact just how wrong you are, and just how little you actually know.

Go on, write a few lines of functioning code and I might believe that you've actually touched a computer other than to type crap in forums.
Guaranteed computing is going backwards. We lost basic ideals in logic to get computing pushed forward. Correctly thought out, computers looked like the end of the world to law makers. Precise truth and exacting information, at the blink of an eye. Wow, the end for liars.

But if computers were sabotaged to such a point that they really could never be a reliable tool for all to share and track information with total accuracy. With a perfect user interface. Then why not. Make the people think they have a tool a future system, that is theirs, it will keep them quiet and content. Until it comes out.

The same thing happened with radio. You had doctor Joad ripping the world a new ass hole. On radio. Unveiling the poor scientists. You had preachers on the radio, as well calling out the lying scientists and politicians. Then they came down on radio, it became hard to get money to pay for radio shows that were controversial.

It was apparent that there was a force at work silencing radio. So Television was announced. This would end all the confusion of radio, and not being able to see anything.

Then it was cable, by the people paying for cable themselves by God, you could watch a man demonstrate a controversial device if it exists, on TV, because there would be no sponsors. At least according to Ted Turner.

Today much of cable has been taken over by commercials.

Then there was Compuserve, and little BBS's (bulletin board systems). It was not managed well, however some were horrified when they found what you could find on a bulletin board system.

So then there was going to be a big standard system open to all. Anyone could go anywhere and pretty much see what anyone was offering. Don't get me wrong, I do not feel that secrets are a good thing.
However what the BBS's were doing was a good thing. Because they were weeding out the good and bad software. Weeding out the good and bad computers and peripherals.

There was personalized information available to individuals at different levels.

As far as car safety they actually understood impact better many years ago then they do today. Most of the impact data in computers is flawed input.

They had x-ray machines on the battle field in World War One. And yes you could create an MRI without a computer.

HTML allowed the hyper link, in the HTML browser, oh boy.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

46. Originally Posted by leohopkins
Hmmm.

It has been said that the British government is proposing to record and analyse every single sms text message and email sent in the country. How I wonder would they be able to accomplish this feat if the GCHQ did not already have a secret quantum computer already at their disposal. That is some food for thought.
It would not take a whole lot of computing power to do that actually, if you could buffer, moments from events of global proportion, that generate massive amounts of data, in a short time period.

It would not take much to do it.

To me it is showing the terrorists that they are winning or won. Are we going to open every ones mail and UPS packages as well? Ha-ha. The security people are retards. They hurt themselves and the country so much that no one wants it. Or wants to hurt it anymore.

They are probably more afraid of you and me starting something in our own country. And want the heads up on it.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

47. William, you're willful ignorance is astounding. I've never heard someone speak so much absolute rubbish so confidently.

If you cannot offer proof, you can shut up.

You cannot have an MRI without computers. You cannot process the kind of information described with very little computing power (at least as far as normal computers go). Computers can't now, nor ever, give you the truth. Have you heard the saying Garbage In, Garbage Out? Computers haven't been sabotaged. Commercials exist because people are greedy (more or less), not because of any government plots.

You know, I seriously can't think of how to respond coherently to such complete trash. You really should stop talking as if you know everything before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

48. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
William, you're willful ignorance is astounding. I've never heard someone speak so much absolute rubbish so confidently.

If you cannot offer proof, you can shut up.

You cannot have an MRI without computers. You cannot process the kind of information described with very little computing power (at least as far as normal computers go). Computers can't now, nor ever, give you the truth. Have you heard the saying Garbage In, Garbage Out? Computers haven't been sabotaged. Commercials exist because people are greedy (more or less), not because of any government plots.

You know, I seriously can't think of how to respond coherently to such complete trash. You really should stop talking as if you know everything before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
If you went to court today and presented computer evidence, I doubt that any decent lawyer, could not persuade a jury and a judge, that have had bad experiences with computers, to throw out the case.

Without paper evidence or other physical evidence. That might not be available, by shear logistics, or the fact that they are documents, not allowed to leave a facility. Finding said documents in storage warehouses, and copying them could take months and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Sometime more then just dropping the suit. And if someone goes over them. Many would be illegible, some would be wrongly pulled documents.

If computers were properly thought out from the ground up. They would be the most secure, most accurate way to enter, store, and sort data on earth.

As it is. They are actually considered unreliable by wealthy business owners. And the business owners or executives, can use that in times of trouble. Who would not believe the company had a computer crash? It just so happened to be about, when there was a rumor that some government agency was on the way down to see them?
There would be so much doubt that the computer was working perfectly without flaw, that you could not convict on that kind of accusation.

I don't think I know of a company that has not had some kind of data loss, because of computers. The thieves walk with no trace of what really happened, and the company goes under.

Imagine the questions a lawyer could ask about previous computer failure at a large corporation. It would boggle the mind, to hear the amount of wasted time and lost data that occurred. Gapping holes in recorded or redundant information.

If computers were the amazing devices they were supposed to be, for the few con artists that would just try to get away with asking for physical proof, it would be easy to locate that proof and present it. Using computers.

There were open calls to have the division symbol put on a computer key board, before giving out any more grants. I believe it was IBM that said they had the fastest best input method in the world, without the division symbol "÷" to get the grants. The government was going to cut money for computer development.

And do not get me wrong, the government knew what to do. They turned it into a lobbying frenzy. And allowed IBM to sell itself out, along with the futures of American school kids. By introducing a poorly thought out system of computing.

The reason why computing was going no where in business, was because businesses knew the deal, the government was their enemy. The less the government knew the better. Which of course sounds suicidal, if you cannot trust your leaders. And it is.

But the businessmen were not up to taking down the government. And I do not blame them either. You could lose your life's work if someone you are pulling into the spotlight, or taking down, has a Senator on the payroll, or enough money to get a lawyer that does.

By the time they get it straightened out, you are divorced, and in the poor house.

Talk to computer people, they think their government is far less then honest, almost an enemy, and often do not like the rules, enforced by government or the reason for them. The government was already looking at taxing E-mails. That would have killed computing.

Rather then to setup networks, that leave a footprint. Which should have been the first thing done, before allowing networks to be built and get FCC approval.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

49. Originally Posted by William McCormick
They would be the most secure, most accurate way to enter, store, and sort data on earth.
Yes, that just about describes a properly set up computer data center.