Quantum computers

FAQ

Profile

Quantum computers
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Hardware Problem Solving Community! (Home) -> General Discussion

Next: URL: free drivers for L.G. LG CIMA ACT CIMAACT LG..

Author

Message

philo

External

Since: Feb 08, 2004
Posts: 687

(Msg. 16) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: alt>comp>hardware, others (more info?)

"Grinder" <grinder.RemoveThis@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message news:xDkwj.48113$9j6.29340@attbi_s22... > uri wrote: > > How much faster will quantum computers be than classical computers? > > Exactly 42x. when you throw any type of computer out the window they all fall at 32/ft/sec^2 >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

nobody33

External

Since: Jan 23, 2005
Posts: 159

(Msg. 17) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Sam Wormley wrote: > Grinder wrote: >> uri wrote: >>> How much faster will quantum computers be than classical computers? >> >> Exactly 42x. > > > That figure is "mostly harmless" but it might be a tiny bit > faster than that. A very deep thought. -- John McGaw [Knoxville, TN, USA] http://johnmcgaw.com >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

CBFalconer

External

Since: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 616

(Msg. 18) Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

jimp.DeleteThis@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > uri <danny99.DeleteThis@bezeqint.net> wrote: >> John McGaw <nob....DeleteThis@nowh.ere> wrote: > >>> Or look at the March 2008 issue of Scientific American in which >>> an article debunks some of the wilder claims made for quantum >>> computers. >> >> The problem is that the scientific american article is not free. > > Neither are most things in life. Isn't that a bitch? The essence of a stupid remark, especially on an international news group. Another problem for Uri is likely to be that Scientific American is just not available in his part of the world. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

jimp

External

Since: Feb 24, 2008
Posts: 5

(Msg. 19) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In sci.physics CBFalconer <cbfalconer RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote: > jimp RemoveThis @specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > uri <danny99 RemoveThis @bezeqint.net> wrote: > >> John McGaw <nob... RemoveThis @nowh.ere> wrote: > > > >>> Or look at the March 2008 issue of Scientific American in which > >>> an article debunks some of the wilder claims made for quantum > >>> computers. > >> > >> The problem is that the scientific american article is not free. > > > > Neither are most things in life. Isn't that a bitch? > The essence of a stupid remark, especially on an international news > group. Another problem for Uri is likely to be that Scientific > American is just not available in his part of the world. His quite specific bitch was that Scientific American is not free, NOT that it wasn't available. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

uri

External

Since: Feb 24, 2008
Posts: 4

(Msg. 20) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:46 am Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

So what are the limits of effective computation in nature? Can we reach computing speed billions and trillions of times faster than current computers? >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

External

Since: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 637

(Msg. 21) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"John McGaw" <nobody.DeleteThis@nowh.ere> wrote in message news:G4lwj.101839$N67.47965@bignews5.bellsouth.net... > Sam Wormley wrote: >> Grinder wrote: >>> uri wrote: >>>> How much faster will quantum computers be than classical computers? >>> >>> Exactly 42x. >> >> >> That figure is "mostly harmless" but it might be a tiny bit >> faster than that. > > A very deep thought. What was the question? >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

nobody33

External

Since: Jan 23, 2005
Posts: 159

(Msg. 22) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

GT wrote: > "John McGaw" <nobody.DeleteThis@nowh.ere> wrote in message > news:G4lwj.101839$N67.47965@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >> Sam Wormley wrote: >>> Grinder wrote: >>>> uri wrote: >>>>> How much faster will quantum computers be than classical computers? >>>> Exactly 42x. >>> >>> That figure is "mostly harmless" but it might be a tiny bit >>> faster than that. >> A very deep thought. > > What was the question? > > What is the meaning of.... Oh. Never mind. I think we've been through all of this before... -- John McGaw [Knoxville, TN, USA] http://johnmcgaw.com >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

Sam Wormley

External

Since: Feb 24, 2008
Posts: 5

(Msg. 23) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

John McGaw wrote: > GT wrote: >> "John McGaw" <nobody.RemoveThis@nowh.ere> wrote in message >> news:G4lwj.101839$N67.47965@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> Grinder wrote: >>>>> uri wrote: >>>>>> How much faster will quantum computers be than classical computers? >>>>> Exactly 42x. >>>> >>>> That figure is "mostly harmless" but it might be a tiny bit >>>> faster than that. >>> A very deep thought. >> >> What was the question? >> > > What is the meaning of.... > > Oh. Never mind. I think we've been through all of this before... > 6 x 7 times before? >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

jimp

External

Since: Feb 24, 2008
Posts: 5

(Msg. 24) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In sci.physics uri <danny99 RemoveThis @bezeqint.net> wrote: > So what are the limits of effective computation in nature? Can we > reach computing speed billions and trillions of times faster than > current computers? The speed of light and propagation delay. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

nobody33

External

Since: Jan 23, 2005
Posts: 159

(Msg. 25) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Sam Wormley wrote: > John McGaw wrote: >> GT wrote: >>> "John McGaw" <nobody.TakeThisOut@nowh.ere> wrote in message >>> news:G4lwj.101839$N67.47965@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> Grinder wrote: >>>>>> uri wrote: >>>>>>> How much faster will quantum computers be than classical computers? >>>>>> Exactly 42x. >>>>> >>>>> That figure is "mostly harmless" but it might be a tiny bit >>>>> faster than that. >>>> A very deep thought. >>> >>> What was the question? >>> >> >> What is the meaning of.... >> >> Oh. Never mind. I think we've been through all of this before... >> > > 6 x 7 times before? It's all about the mice, you see. -- John McGaw [Knoxville, TN, USA] http://johnmcgaw.com >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

CBFalconer

External

Since: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 616

(Msg. 26) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

jimp.TakeThisOut@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > CBFalconer <cbfalconer.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote: >> jimp.TakeThisOut@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> uri <danny99.TakeThisOut@bezeqint.net> wrote: >>>> John McGaw <nob....TakeThisOut@nowh.ere> wrote: >>> >>>>> Or look at the March 2008 issue of Scientific American in which >>>>> an article debunks some of the wilder claims made for quantum >>>>> computers. >>>> >>>> The problem is that the scientific american article is not free. >>> >>> Neither are most things in life. Isn't that a bitch? > >> The essence of a stupid remark, especially on an international news >> group. Another problem for Uri is likely to be that Scientific >> American is just not available in his part of the world. > > His quite specific bitch was that Scientific American is not free, > NOT that it wasn't available. He is obviously a neophyte, and may be in some backwoods location in Pakistan (or wherever), for all you know. His probable first reaction to the McGaw response was to access the Scientific American website, and find that article unavailable. He also has possible problems with the English language. And obviously with Usenet conventions. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

CBFalconer

External

Since: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 616

(Msg. 27) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

uri wrote: > > So what are the limits of effective computation in nature? Can we > reach computing speed billions and trillions of times faster than > current computers? If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, ensure you quote enough for the article to make sense. Google is only an interface to Usenet; it's not Usenet itself. Don't assume your readers can, or ever will, see any previous articles. More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

zzbunker

External

Since: Feb 25, 2008
Posts: 1

(Msg. 28) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Feb 24, 6:57 am, uri <dann... RemoveThis @bezeqint.net> wrote: > How much faster will quantum computers be than classical computers? Actually none. Since the reason internet, and CDs, and DVDs, and lasers, and fiber optics, and satelittes, and robots, and holograms, were even developed for computers is because it's plainly obvious that the only thing the idiot wanks in QM even know about computer speed is bus speed. >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

Sam Wormley

External

Since: Feb 24, 2008
Posts: 5

(Msg. 29) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

John McGaw wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: >> John McGaw wrote: >>> GT wrote: >>>> "John McGaw" <nobody DeleteThis @nowh.ere> wrote in message >>>> news:G4lwj.101839$N67.47965@bignews5.bellsouth.net... >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> Grinder wrote: >>>>>>> uri wrote: >>>>>>>> How much faster will quantum computers be than classical computers? >>>>>>> Exactly 42x. >>>>>> >>>>>> That figure is "mostly harmless" but it might be a tiny bit >>>>>> faster than that. >>>>> A very deep thought. >>>> >>>> What was the question? >>>> >>> >>> What is the meaning of.... >>> >>> Oh. Never mind. I think we've been through all of this before... >>> >> >> 6 x 7 times before? > > It's all about the mice, you see. > Building a quantum computer is like building a hyper-space bypass but the plans are hard to find! >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

Calab

External

Since: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 51

(Msg. 30) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Quantum computers [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

>>>>>>>>> How much faster will quantum computers be than classical >>>>>>>>> computers? >>>>>>>> Exactly 42x. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That figure is "mostly harmless" but it might be a tiny bit >>>>>>> faster than that. >>>>>> A very deep thought. >>>>> >>>>> What was the question? >>>>> >>>> >>>> What is the meaning of.... >>>> >>>> Oh. Never mind. I think we've been through all of this before... >>>> >>> >>> 6 x 7 times before? >> >> It's all about the mice, you see. >> > > Building a quantum computer is like building a hyper-space bypass > but the plans are hard to find! The plans have been available for public viewing for months. just down at the nearest star, Alpha Centuri, a mere 4 light years away. >> Stay informed about: Quantum computers

Display posts from previous:

Related Topics:

Quantum Fireball Plus KX - Does anybody have an old Quantum Fireball Plus KX laying around? I need the electronics board of of it. Thanks, davebz1a@optonline.net

Need Info on Quantum Hardcard EZ127 - I am looking for any setup information available for a Quantum Hardcard EZ127. BIOS setup info, Drivers, Jumpers, etc.

Need AMSET for Quantum Fireball AS40. - Hello, I've been searching for acoustic management util for quantum and can't find it anywhere since maxtor bought them. I tried the maxtor version of amset to no result. Anyone has the quantum version? TIA.

Frozen computers - Hello just had an idea today, Can computers be put in the freezer? I thought sod paying all that money for Chilling systems when i can get an old freezer!!! i have tried dangling the cables in the door (not connected!) and they don't seem to affect th...

2 printers 2 computers - Hello, I'm planning on networking two existing computers (win98 and winxp based). I also have two printers, one inkjet that does duplexing and one laser non-duplexing. On both computers I will need the use of both printers. I have a router without a..

	Hardware Problem Solving Community! (Home) -> General Discussion	All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change) Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 2 of 3

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum