At 01:11 AM 19/08/00 -0400, Tim May wrote:
>Sensationalism.
Agree, vis,
>At 12:51 AM -0400 8/19/00, A. Melon wrote:
>>(08/18/00, 6:30 p.m. ET) By Ron Copeland, InformationWeek
>>
>>Scientists at the University of Geneva are collaborating with the
>>Swiss Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications on an experiment that
>>uses quantum computers to run an unbreakable encryption algorithm.
unbreakable? who peer-reviewed it?
>>Cryptography could, in fact, be the first commercial application for
>>the nascent technology.
which emerging technology? "Unbreakable encryption" or "cryptography"
or what?
>>Quantum computers can process data millions of times faster than the
>>quickest supercomputer.
>
>Really? Have such machines been built?
;)
>>But being so small, they also can take advantage of the peculiar
>>rules of quantum physics.
Which peculiar rules? What's a peculiar rule?
Does this 'droid know what a quantum physic [sic] is?
>>Conventional computers create bits of information, and each bit is
>>either a 0 or a 1. Quantum bits, or qubits, can be both 0 and 1 or
>>any combination of the two numbers.
Matter is either matter, or anti-matter. Quantum matter is both
matter and anti-matter, in which case it annihilates itself. Harrumph.
>>What's more, qubits can't be cloned or copied, making it virtually
>>impossible for someone to break code encrypted with a quantum
>>computer.
"...can't be cloned or copied" - because they can't fucking exist.
>He's confusing quantum computation with the quantum cryptography of
>sending photons over some channel.
that's not all he's confusing.
>>Before quantum computing goes commercial, many hurdles must be
>>cleared,
here's the windup, the pitch,,,
>>not the least of which will be deciding if the miniscule
>>machines will support open-source Linux or Windows from Microsoft
>>Corp. (stock: MSFT), Redmond, Wash.
strike three.
>And now I assume the whole article is a joke...or "Information Week"
>is a joke for employing him.
you got it toyota.
Reese
