ation, but given the
level of integration and how well current coding schemes work, I'd guess
this will remain a niche unless there's a major breakthrough in factoring.
-TD
From: "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eugen Leitl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EM
e, it IS possible to write intelligently on
quantum entanglement, EPR and Aharnov-Bohm, and it's been done by Sci-Am,
Penrose, Kaku and plenty of others.
-TD
From: Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:47:38AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
>
> > I've actually seen these devices in operation. The thing
> > that impressed me most was that the path need not be a
> > single fiber from end to end - you can maintain quantum
> > state across a switchable fi
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:47:38AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
> I've actually seen these devices in operation. The thing
> that impressed me most was that the path need not be a
> single fiber from end to end - you can maintain quantum
> state across a switchable fiber junction. This means
Very
I've actually seen these devices in operation. The thing
that impressed me most was that the path need not be a
single fiber from end to end - you can maintain quantum
state across a switchable fiber junction. This means
you are no longer limited to a single pair of boxes talking to
each other.
On 2005-01-20T12:16:34+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their nanotechnology
> retraction).
How could they possibly get clue? Scientists don't want to write
pop-sci articles for a living. It's impossible to condense most current
research down to diges
