Re: US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU
Jim Watt wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0400, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the truth,
>>WOW!
>>
>>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11784
>
> does it have security problems?
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com
PCs have a ceiling with regard to speed. Loosely stated, the PC architecture
must change to a different platform soon. There are too many limitations
with the current system. For example, excessive heat, attenuation (as
systems get smaller and smaller), etc, etc. It has been said that the next
generation of CPUs will be Quantum based.
Re: US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU
Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> writes:
>Jim Watt wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0400, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the truth,
>>>WOW!
>>>
>>>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11784
>>
>> does it have security problems?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>> http://www.gibnet.com
>PCs have a ceiling with regard to speed. Loosely stated, the PC architecture
And what is that ceiling?
>must change to a different platform soon. There are too many limitations
Perhaps, but what is it you are suggesting.
>with the current system. For example, excessive heat, attenuation (as
How does making it smaller increase attenuation? And What level of heat is
"excessive" ( current machines are of order 10^10 above the thermodynamic
limit of dissipation per quantum gate-- assuming dissipative gates)
>systems get smaller and smaller), etc, etc. It has been said that the next
>generation of CPUs will be Quantum based.
Since the world is quantum based, that is a pretty safe prediction.
Re: US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0400, in alt.computer.security , Imhotep
<Imhotep@nospam.net> in <fdydnW9ZDvmZ2oLeRVn-2Q@adelphia.com> wrote:
>Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the truth,
>WOW!
>
>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11784
>
>Imhotep
>
If anyone want one I will sell it to you for $100. The thing is, you
send me the cash now and I don't have to deliver until they are
available. No money back guarantee. And I can also guarantee your
level of satisfaction. (I make no claims here of what level that will
be.)
Re: US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU
Hehe. You've got my $100 if you can explain how 'quantum-optical' is not
a logical impossibility.
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0400, in alt.computer.security , Imhotep
> <Imhotep@nospam.net> in <fdydnW9ZDvmZ2oLeRVn-2Q@adelphia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the truth,
>>WOW!
>>
>>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11784
>>
>>Imhotep
>>
>
> If anyone want one I will sell it to you for $100. The thing is, you
> send me the cash now and I don't have to deliver until they are
> available. No money back guarantee. And I can also guarantee your
> level of satisfaction. (I make no claims here of what level that will
> be.)
>
Re: US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU
Unruh wrote:
> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> writes:
>
>>Jim Watt wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0400, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the
>>>>truth, WOW!
>>>>
>>>>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11784
>>>
>>> does it have security problems?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Watt
>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>
>>PCs have a ceiling with regard to speed. Loosely stated, the PC
>>architecture
>
> And what is that ceiling?
Hummm. are you saying that their are no limitations in the current CPU and
buss architectures? I am confused please explain.
>>must change to a different platform soon. There are too many limitations
>
> Perhaps, but what is it you are suggesting.
I am not an electrical engineer. I am a software engineer (well, my degree
anyway). As such I am not suggesting anything. Just found an article that I
though was interesting relating to computing.
>>with the current system. For example, excessive heat, attenuation (as
>
> How does making it smaller increase attenuation? And What level of heat is
> "excessive" ( current machines are of order 10^10 above the thermodynamic
> limit of dissipation per quantum gate-- assuming dissipative gates)
It is my understanding that as the CPUs get smalled, the "walls" in between
the paths also get smaller. As such there are limitations on small they can
become before two paths, close to each other, start to interfere with each
other. Again, sorry about the lack in electrical engineering "speak" my
degree is in software :-)
>>systems get smaller and smaller), etc, etc. It has been said that the next
>>generation of CPUs will be Quantum based.
>
> Since the world is quantum based, that is a pretty safe prediction.
You knew as well as I, I was speaking about quantum computing. Not the
quantifying of life :-)
>
>
>>Reading is your friend Jim, don't fear it.
>
> It depends on what you read.
Reading is never a waste of time when it is scientific...
Re: US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU
Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> writes:
>Unruh wrote:
>> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> writes:
>>
>>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0400, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the
>>>>>truth, WOW!
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11784
>>>>
>>>> does it have security problems?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim Watt
>>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>>
>>>PCs have a ceiling with regard to speed. Loosely stated, the PC
>>>architecture
>>
>> And what is that ceiling?
>Hummm. are you saying that their are no limitations in the current CPU and
>buss architectures? I am confused please explain.
You claimed a ceiling,I didn't. YOu need to justify your statement.
>
>>>must change to a different platform soon. There are too many limitations
>>
>> Perhaps, but what is it you are suggesting.
>I am not an electrical engineer. I am a software engineer (well, my degree
>anyway). As such I am not suggesting anything. Just found an article that I
>though was interesting relating to computing.
"must change to a different platform soon" is not the statement of someone
who claims to know nothing.
And you did not just find an interesting article, you made editorial
comments about it as well.
>>>with the current system. For example, excessive heat, attenuation (as
>>
>> How does making it smaller increase attenuation? And What level of heat is
>> "excessive" ( current machines are of order 10^10 above the thermodynamic
>> limit of dissipation per quantum gate-- assuming dissipative gates)
>It is my understanding that as the CPUs get smalled, the "walls" in between
>the paths also get smaller. As such there are limitations on small they can
>become before two paths, close to each other, start to interfere with each
>other. Again, sorry about the lack in electrical engineering "speak" my
>degree is in software :-)
That is not attenuation it is crosstalk.
>>>systems get smaller and smaller), etc, etc. It has been said that the next
>>>generation of CPUs will be Quantum based.
>>
>> Since the world is quantum based, that is a pretty safe prediction.
>You knew as well as I, I was speaking about quantum computing. Not the
>quantifying of life :-)
Quantum computing is NOT the next generation of CPUs. Quantum computing may
be good for some tasks but certainly not general purpose computing.
And in quantum computing Moores law is logarithmic. Ie, the number of bits
increases by one every two years, (not doubling)
>>
>>
>>>Reading is your friend Jim, don't fear it.
>>
>> It depends on what you read.
>Reading is never a waste of time when it is scientific...
Some reading is a waste of time. (Eg, Angels and Demons)
Re: US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:25:36 -0400, in alt.computer.security , Derrick
Stone <dstone@virginia.edu> in <dfq6o1$v1$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
wrote:
>Hehe. You've got my $100 if you can explain how 'quantum-optical' is not
>a logical impossibility.
Never said it was a logical impossibly, I am just saying that this
thing is a hoax.
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0400, in alt.computer.security , Imhotep
>> <Imhotep@nospam.net> in <fdydnW9ZDvmZ2oLeRVn-2Q@adelphia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the truth,
>>>WOW!
>>>
>>>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11784
>>>
>>>Imhotep
>>>
>>
>> If anyone want one I will sell it to you for $100. The thing is, you
>> send me the cash now and I don't have to deliver until they are
>> available. No money back guarantee. And I can also guarantee your
>> level of satisfaction. (I make no claims here of what level that will
>> be.)
>>
--
Matt Silberstein
Re: US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU
Unruh wrote:
> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> writes:
>
>>Unruh wrote:
>
>>> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>Jim Watt wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:01:09 -0400, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the
>>>>>>truth, WOW!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11784
>>>>>
>>>>> does it have security problems?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jim Watt
>>>>> http://www.gibnet.com
>>>
>>>>PCs have a ceiling with regard to speed. Loosely stated, the PC
>>>>architecture
>>>
>>> And what is that ceiling?
>
>>Hummm. are you saying that their are no limitations in the current CPU and
>>buss architectures? I am confused please explain.
>
> You claimed a ceiling,I didn't. YOu need to justify your statement.
Well, if you disagree try justifying why and I will justify why I think
there is a ceiling...
>>
>>>>must change to a different platform soon. There are too many limitations
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but what is it you are suggesting.
>
>>I am not an electrical engineer. I am a software engineer (well, my degree
>>anyway). As such I am not suggesting anything. Just found an article that
>>I though was interesting relating to computing.
>
> "must change to a different platform soon" is not the statement of someone
> who claims to know nothing.
> And you did not just find an interesting article, you made editorial
> comments about it as well.
My "editorial" was and I qoute:
"Not sure if this guy is full of it or not, but if he is telling the truth,
WOW!"
Not sure if I would consider that an editorial.
>>>>with the current system. For example, excessive heat, attenuation (as
>>>
>>> How does making it smaller increase attenuation? And What level of heat
>>> is "excessive" ( current machines are of order 10^10 above the
>>> thermodynamic limit of dissipation per quantum gate-- assuming
>>> dissipative gates)
>
>>It is my understanding that as the CPUs get smalled, the "walls" in
>>between the paths also get smaller. As such there are limitations on small
>>they can become before two paths, close to each other, start to interfere
>>with each other. Again, sorry about the lack in electrical engineering
>>"speak" my degree is in software :-)
>
> That is not attenuation it is crosstalk.
yes, you are correct crosstalk. Attenuation is defined as basically loss of
signal strength. If you have two paths running parallel but in different
directions in a very small space would this not affect the signal's
strength?
>>>>systems get smaller and smaller), etc, etc. It has been said that the
>>>>next generation of CPUs will be Quantum based.
>>>
>>> Since the world is quantum based, that is a pretty safe prediction.
>
>>You knew as well as I, I was speaking about quantum computing. Not the
>>quantifying of life :-)
>
> Quantum computing is NOT the next generation of CPUs. Quantum computing
> may be good for some tasks but certainly not general purpose computing.
> And in quantum computing Moores law is logarithmic. Ie, the number of bits
> increases by one every two years, (not doubling)
So quantum computing is not a potential next generation of PCs? If so, what
do you think is? Where do you see things in say 10, 20 or 30 years?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Reading is your friend Jim, don't fear it.
>>>
>>> It depends on what you read.
>
>>Reading is never a waste of time when it is scientific...
>
> Some reading is a waste of time. (Eg, Angels and Demons)
US 'World Genius' Touts 6.8GHz 'Quantum-Optical' CPU 
Linear Mode
