If Moore's Law hits a sinkhole...

[classicman]

No attack - just my opinion. I believe that engineers are interested primarily in facts. What's wrong with that?

I'll be the first to admit that aside from reading this thread and a couple of the associated links, I do not know anything about quantum computers.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'll be the first to admit that aside from reading this thread and a couple of the associated links, I do not know anything about quantum computers.

So why are you posting attacks? Why are you posting about something you know nothing about? Oh. You understand attacking another poster. That justifies your post on a subject you know nothing about - that you cannot contribute positively to? How is disparaging another poster productive or useful? Why do you routinely post an atack on Radar? Where do you post any useful information?

[tw]

Moving back to the subject, quantum computing is not a solution to all computing problems. QC is only practical to a particular type of computing problem where numerous possibilities (permutations) exist simultaneously during the computing process. Breaking encryption is a possible example of where QC can be so productive. QC works by storing and manipulating a large amount of data with few particles. But when the computation is done, only one answer can be read. For example, any problem with two or more valid answers cannot be solved efficiently. Problems that don't work well in quantum computing include trying to optimize the packing of odd sized boxes in a trunk or finding a solution to visting every island connected by bridges only once. These problems are called "nondeterministic polynomial time".

Quantum computers are not a magic solution to all computing as so many assume. QC is a solution to limited problems that involve permutations.

[Radar]

No, I said that the leader in Quantum Computer research (D-Wave Systems) says they'll have a working model in 3 years. It might take a bit longer to get them to market, but there's enough room for other innovations to keep Moore's law going before that happens.

Moore's Law hasn't failed in more than 40 years, and I am not going to bet against it failing anytime soon. I've given reasons why. The odds are with me.

I'm guessing we'll see the first Quantum Computers hit the market in 2010

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

No, I said that the leader in Quantum Computer research (D-Wave Systems) says they'll have a working model in 3 years.

A startup company desperate to entice investors says they will have a quantum computer in three years? Even Transmeta did not make what they hoped would be a Pentium competitor - existing technology - that quick. New products typically take 4 to 10 years to design. And that does not include time for 'basic' research. But D-Wave needs investors. Therefore they claim to be the industry leader. That is proof that a quantum computer is only years away? 2008? We now have details behind that claim and appreciate why the claim was really not reasonable.

I challenged Radar; making him provide those details. As usual, the 'devil is in those details'.

That multi-Terabyte memory chip is actually a large system containing thousand of memory chips. Obviously with basic grasp of reality and the numbers, a Terabyte memory chip did not exist; despite what Radar posted. Meanwhile IBM's earlier 3 Terabyte data storage unit (that does the same thing slower) has already been retired to places like the Encryption Museum in Fort Meade MD. The technology is has been that old. It too was not a memory chip. But IBMs 3 Terabyte storage unit now long since retired demonstrates that 2.5 Terabyte RAM drive is not a major technological breakthrough. Radar only demonstrates someone has deep pockets and a need.

Amazing how the poster changes his claims when challenged. It is a shame that he would also insult those who correctly challenged what was a post chock full of errors.

Again, it is that devil - those little details - that forced Radar to change his tune. Rush Limbaugh does same by simply forgetting those details. It’s called propaganda. Propaganda must make extravagant claims - and never provide those details.

Meanwhile, I see nothing new in Radar's citations other than the quantum computer technology has been performed in silicon and maybe some better use of quantum dots. Notice the temperature that some of these experiments are performed at ... 4 degrees above absolute zero. It's still a laboratory experiment in 'basic' research - too far from being moved into 'application' research and then into a marketable product.

Radar demonstrates what I had noted in a previous discussion. Quantum physics is to today's teenager what the transistor was to a teenager in 1960. Quantum physics is that important to this nation's future and to so many advances in technology. Need we note products currently based in quantum physics: the gigabyte disk drives and PET medical scans.

Radar has promoted the quantum computer like superconductivity was hyped maybe 20 years ago. Notice all those superconductive wires everywhere? Even a first trial in Chicago appears to have failed. But then taking something from 'basic' research, through 'application' research, and then to a marketable product requires typically at least 20 years.

Now that Radar has provided citations, his posts have returned to the realm of reality. Numerous quantum techniques are being tried and still in 'basic' research. The quantum computer as a viable product appears to be essential to our future and is at least a decade away. 20 years is not soon enough to avoid the brick wall that Moore's law may be approaching; no matter how many personal insults Radar includes in his reply.

[Pete Zicato]

Not sure what you're on about, tw.

Originally Posted by Radar

I'm guessing we'll see the first Quantum Computers hit the market in 2010

[Radar]

I suppose it's not an insult to publicly call someone a liar.

We agree that Quantum computers are extremely important to the future of technology. I say that current advances will carry us long enough until the first of the Quantum computers is up and running and will not interrupt Moore's law. You disagree.

Right now it's simply a matter of opinion. I've shown the research, and given a link to a company that says they'll have a working Quantum computer in 3 years. You mentioned superconductivity as though there haven't been any advances in it in the last 20 years when in reality the temperature at which superconductivity can be reached has gotten much higher using ceramics. In fact it can be as warm as minus 234 degrees Fahrenheit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

I suppose it's not an insult to publicly call someone a liar.

Radar - that was my point. To call someone a liar by itself is nothing more than an insult. To say someone is lying AND provide reasons why is a logical discussion.

My criticisms were based primarily on 'Rush Limbaugh like' claims. Why? Rush Limbaugh is faxed daily from the White House what he should say. Reasons why are totally irrelevant. Therefore Rush Limbaugh lies. It is called propaganda. I have not insulted Rush. I have defined him for what he is by what he does.

Meanwhile I just read an article in this month's Scientific American on a problem with quantum computing. The way I read it, decoherence means the qubit has maybe 0.5 microseconds to be initialized, perform a logical operation, and qubit states read. Decoherence is the "loss of the very quantum properties that such computers would rely on." Fundamentals of quantum computing may be demonstrated in a 'basic' research experiment. But things like decoherence are the 'devilish details' that will add 10+ years to getting a functioning machine out of basic research and through application research.

A functioning transistor was finally demonstrated in 1948. But transistors took another 15 years to eventually appear in products. And even then, transistors were so exotic that a radio was rated by its number of transistors. A 'best' transistor radio was 9 transistors. Quantum computers have yet to achieve the equivalent of a 1948 transistor. They are many years from becoming useful. However quantum physics is the future. Much like the transistor was in 1948 or blue-green steel in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".

Superconductivity saw a breakthrough maybe 15 years ago. For a while, it appearred superconductivity would start appearing in products everywhere. However failure of superconductive wires in Chicago's Con Ed and use in a naval warship still have not succeeded. And still, the subatomic nature that creates superconductivity is not comprehended enough to predict and then find warmer supercondutors. Having so little knowledge of what makes some compounds superconductors means we are still a long way from profitable applications. But then it too demonstrates long time periods between basic research and a useful product.

There is nothing in from basic research that can rescue Moore's law if the FET transistor does hit that brick wall. As the EE Times article noted, many of the tricks for perserving Moore's law are no longer so promising.

[Radar]

You're forgetting the fact that I'm absolutely NOTHING like Rush Limbaugh and that everything I've said is honest. Your comparison of me to his propaganda spreading holds no weight.

Your opinion is just that...an opinion. It's no better than mine. Mine is based in fact and you claims yours is too. Only time will tell. If your smart you won't put money on Moore's law failing.

That's it. There's nothing else to say.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

You're forgetting the fact that I'm absolutely NOTHING like Rush Limbaugh and that everything I've said is honest.

Now you have completely missed the point. First, the expression was 'Rush Limbaugh like'. Defined was a concept that both Rush Limbaugh and Hilter used. A technique so common to propaganda. The point is, again, that when one does not provide supporting facts - and especially the numbers - with assertions, then one is using a 'Rush Limbaugh like' technique.

Second, at no time in that post was Radar declared another Rush Limbaugh. Please reread the post more carefully - and only for what is specifically stated in that post. Demonstrated is why your earlier post receieved so much criticism. It made statements in a format that Rush Limbaugh would be proud of.

[mbpark]

Radar,

I've known him since 1991-1992.

He is completely well-researched, and is a respected engineer. He has my respect because he does his homework and is very well-spoken, as he has shown again in this case.

At no time did he insult you. He simply stated facts.

And yes, you are acting similarly to Rush Limbaugh. If I wanted to hear Rush-like banter, I'll turn on my radio or follow some links off of the Drudge Report site, not here.

When I want to talk technology with people who really know what they are talking about, and who do not sling insults, I'll come here. If you want to flame, there's always Fark .

Mitch

[tw]

The first posted sentence sounded more like a eulogy at a funeral.

Pity the poor MOSFET. Once the star of microelectronics - the ideal blend of elegant simplicity that made the global industry possible - the planar metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor appears to be approaching the end of its useful life.

Now we're on the verge of a cyberspace riot. I thought funerals like this were only in cartoons.

[Radar]

And you are.....?


If you want to talk technology with people who really know what they're talking about, you'd want to talk to me instead of a woefully misinformed guy like tw. I actually AM an engineer and I actually work in the field. I've used my skills for aerospace, banking, entertainment, and now biotech companies. I'm at the bleeding edge of technology, and I've remained there for the last 20+ years.

I could give a shit about you comparing me to Rush Limbaugh. Because you're nobody. Before today, I've never seen a single one of your posts so your opinion means less than nothing.

You claim he state facts. You are a liar. He did not state any facts. All he did was say, "Nuh uh" to the facts that I stated....and backed up. He didn't provide a single reference where I provided several.

So run off little boy and let the adults like me do the talking.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Radar

And you are.....?

He's Mitch.

[dar512]

Radar, you keep talking about your degree. Is your degree in chip design? quantum mechanics? If not, then your "I am an engineer" statement means squat. Being a 'network engineer' in no way qualifies you as an expert in this domain.