<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_13_1358250</id>
	<title>Google Demonstrates Quantum Computer Image Search</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260717240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader sends along this quote from New Scientist:
<i>"Google's web services may be considered cutting edge, but they run in warehouses filled with conventional computers. Now the search giant has revealed it is investigating <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18272-google-demonstrates-quantum-computer-image-search.html">the use of quantum computers to run its next generation of faster applications</a>. Writing on Google's research blog this week, Hartmut Neven, head of its image recognition team, reveals that the Californian firm has for three years been <a href="http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/12/machine-learning-with-quantum.html">quietly developing a quantum computer</a> that can <a href="http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/nips\_demoreport\_120709\_research.pdf">identify particular objects in a database of stills or video</a> (PDF). Google has been doing this, Neven says, with D-Wave, a Canadian firm that has developed an on-chip array of quantum bits &mdash; or qubits &mdash; encoded in magnetically coupled superconducting loops."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader sends along this quote from New Scientist : " Google 's web services may be considered cutting edge , but they run in warehouses filled with conventional computers .
Now the search giant has revealed it is investigating the use of quantum computers to run its next generation of faster applications .
Writing on Google 's research blog this week , Hartmut Neven , head of its image recognition team , reveals that the Californian firm has for three years been quietly developing a quantum computer that can identify particular objects in a database of stills or video ( PDF ) .
Google has been doing this , Neven says , with D-Wave , a Canadian firm that has developed an on-chip array of quantum bits    or qubits    encoded in magnetically coupled superconducting loops .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader sends along this quote from New Scientist:
"Google's web services may be considered cutting edge, but they run in warehouses filled with conventional computers.
Now the search giant has revealed it is investigating the use of quantum computers to run its next generation of faster applications.
Writing on Google's research blog this week, Hartmut Neven, head of its image recognition team, reveals that the Californian firm has for three years been quietly developing a quantum computer that can identify particular objects in a database of stills or video (PDF).
Google has been doing this, Neven says, with D-Wave, a Canadian firm that has developed an on-chip array of quantum bits — or qubits — encoded in magnetically coupled superconducting loops.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700</id>
	<title>Already Skynet protects itself</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/04/11/map-of-all-google-data-center-locations/" title="pingdom.com">http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/04/11/map-of-all-google-data-center-locations/</a> [pingdom.com]</p><p>"Google secrecy</p><p>Google has made it difficult both to find out where they keep their data centers and how many they have. One big reason for this is that almost all IP addresses that Google uses (and there are a lot of them) are listed to their Mountain View, California address, so just looking at IP addresses (with IP WHOIS or IP-to-location databases) won&rsquo;t help you figure out where their data centers are or how many they have.</p><p>In addition to this, Google usually seeks permits for their data center projects using companies (LLCs) that don&rsquo;t mention Google at all, for example Lapis LLC in North Carolina and Tetra LLC in Iowa.</p><p>Since Google tends to be quite secretive about their data centers in general, the information we have presented here most likely isn&rsquo;t 100\% complete"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //royal.pingdom.com/2008/04/11/map-of-all-google-data-center-locations/ [ pingdom.com ] " Google secrecyGoogle has made it difficult both to find out where they keep their data centers and how many they have .
One big reason for this is that almost all IP addresses that Google uses ( and there are a lot of them ) are listed to their Mountain View , California address , so just looking at IP addresses ( with IP WHOIS or IP-to-location databases ) won    t help you figure out where their data centers are or how many they have.In addition to this , Google usually seeks permits for their data center projects using companies ( LLCs ) that don    t mention Google at all , for example Lapis LLC in North Carolina and Tetra LLC in Iowa.Since Google tends to be quite secretive about their data centers in general , the information we have presented here most likely isn    t 100 \ % complete "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/04/11/map-of-all-google-data-center-locations/ [pingdom.com]"Google secrecyGoogle has made it difficult both to find out where they keep their data centers and how many they have.
One big reason for this is that almost all IP addresses that Google uses (and there are a lot of them) are listed to their Mountain View, California address, so just looking at IP addresses (with IP WHOIS or IP-to-location databases) won’t help you figure out where their data centers are or how many they have.In addition to this, Google usually seeks permits for their data center projects using companies (LLCs) that don’t mention Google at all, for example Lapis LLC in North Carolina and Tetra LLC in Iowa.Since Google tends to be quite secretive about their data centers in general, the information we have presented here most likely isn’t 100\% complete"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422860</id>
	<title>Wel, There goes encryption...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260722460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there goes encryption.  (To oversimplify.  To quote an honest prof, "I was trying to decide between ease of understanding and truth."  Disclaimer: My understanding too.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there goes encryption .
( To oversimplify .
To quote an honest prof , " I was trying to decide between ease of understanding and truth .
" Disclaimer : My understanding too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there goes encryption.
(To oversimplify.
To quote an honest prof, "I was trying to decide between ease of understanding and truth.
"  Disclaimer: My understanding too.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422742</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1260721320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be an interesting departure from their usual "cheap commodity whiteboxes" strategy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be an interesting departure from their usual " cheap commodity whiteboxes " strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be an interesting departure from their usual "cheap commodity whiteboxes" strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30430022</id>
	<title>Re:I literally cannot tell if they are serious.</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1260799980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;I'm sorry, this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of Johnny Mnemonic: adiabatic quantum algorithm by magnetically coupling superconducting loops called rf-squid flux qubits.
<br> <br>
Isn't it nice not to have autism?  The physics experts at the D-Wave convention wouldn't know.  I like the guy who said "all those words have meanings."  Yeah, but you have to try and make a sentence out of them.
<br> <br>
Autism: When you can't see the forest for the trees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm sorry , this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of Johnny Mnemonic : adiabatic quantum algorithm by magnetically coupling superconducting loops called rf-squid flux qubits .
Is n't it nice not to have autism ?
The physics experts at the D-Wave convention would n't know .
I like the guy who said " all those words have meanings .
" Yeah , but you have to try and make a sentence out of them .
Autism : When you ca n't see the forest for the trees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I'm sorry, this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of Johnny Mnemonic: adiabatic quantum algorithm by magnetically coupling superconducting loops called rf-squid flux qubits.
Isn't it nice not to have autism?
The physics experts at the D-Wave convention wouldn't know.
I like the guy who said "all those words have meanings.
"  Yeah, but you have to try and make a sentence out of them.
Autism: When you can't see the forest for the trees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424794</id>
	<title>Re:Already Skynet protects itself</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1260696900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well duh

it's common for big DC's to do this its part of the pysical security for years all BT's Datacentres had no external sinage as they where bomb targets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>well duh it 's common for big DC 's to do this its part of the pysical security for years all BT 's Datacentres had no external sinage as they where bomb targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well duh

it's common for big DC's to do this its part of the pysical security for years all BT's Datacentres had no external sinage as they where bomb targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422872</id>
	<title>Uh...</title>
	<author>vistapwns</author>
	<datestamp>1260722520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That summary sounded like a sci-fi movie plot. I hope it works as they claim, that would be extremely neat. With all the money google has they should do serious investment in AI and nanorobotics, two technologies which could probably solve every physical problem (disease, aging, poverty, etc.) problems humans have.  The government spends a few million but it's not enough, and it seems no one at the big corporations knows/gives a damn about this. O well, maybe one day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That summary sounded like a sci-fi movie plot .
I hope it works as they claim , that would be extremely neat .
With all the money google has they should do serious investment in AI and nanorobotics , two technologies which could probably solve every physical problem ( disease , aging , poverty , etc .
) problems humans have .
The government spends a few million but it 's not enough , and it seems no one at the big corporations knows/gives a damn about this .
O well , maybe one day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That summary sounded like a sci-fi movie plot.
I hope it works as they claim, that would be extremely neat.
With all the money google has they should do serious investment in AI and nanorobotics, two technologies which could probably solve every physical problem (disease, aging, poverty, etc.
) problems humans have.
The government spends a few million but it's not enough, and it seems no one at the big corporations knows/gives a damn about this.
O well, maybe one day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30425632</id>
	<title>Schr&#246;dinger's lolcat</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1260703020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Test User: OK, so what you're saying is that if I search for lolcats using Google's quantum image search, it will give me an array of lolcat images to choose from, but until I <i>open</i> the image we won't know if the lolcat is funny or <i>not</i> funny? That makes sense.<br> <br>
Google Scientist: Actually, before you look at the image the lolcat is in a state of superposition. Before your look at the photo it can be both funny AND not funny. By the act of you observing the photo it settles into one of those two states.<br> <br>
Test user: So there's a 50/50 chance of the exact same photo being funny or not funny?<br> <br>
Google Scientist: Essentially yes. Well, unless you go by the "many worlds" model, which states that if you look at the picture, you become entangled with the lolcat, so that the observation of the humor of the lolcat, and the actual humor of the lolcat are joined together. There will exist a universe where you find the image funny, and a universe where you find the image not funny, but these two universes cannot inform each other of these two different states.<br> <br>
Test User: I think I understand.<br> <br>
Google Scientist: Go ahead, click on one of the images from the search.<br> <br>
Test User: Now, you're <i>sure</i> nothing bad will happen? No black holes will open up or anything?<br> <br>
Google Scientist (amused): Yes, I'm absolutely sure.<br> <br>
Test User: OK, I'll try <a href="http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/12/13/129052154476866602.jpg" title="cheezburger.com">this one.</a> [cheezburger.com] <br> <br>
(The user clicks the image.)<br> <br>
Test User: OH NOES! (faints.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Test User : OK , so what you 're saying is that if I search for lolcats using Google 's quantum image search , it will give me an array of lolcat images to choose from , but until I open the image we wo n't know if the lolcat is funny or not funny ?
That makes sense .
Google Scientist : Actually , before you look at the image the lolcat is in a state of superposition .
Before your look at the photo it can be both funny AND not funny .
By the act of you observing the photo it settles into one of those two states .
Test user : So there 's a 50/50 chance of the exact same photo being funny or not funny ?
Google Scientist : Essentially yes .
Well , unless you go by the " many worlds " model , which states that if you look at the picture , you become entangled with the lolcat , so that the observation of the humor of the lolcat , and the actual humor of the lolcat are joined together .
There will exist a universe where you find the image funny , and a universe where you find the image not funny , but these two universes can not inform each other of these two different states .
Test User : I think I understand .
Google Scientist : Go ahead , click on one of the images from the search .
Test User : Now , you 're sure nothing bad will happen ?
No black holes will open up or anything ?
Google Scientist ( amused ) : Yes , I 'm absolutely sure .
Test User : OK , I 'll try this one .
[ cheezburger.com ] ( The user clicks the image .
) Test User : OH NOES !
( faints. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Test User: OK, so what you're saying is that if I search for lolcats using Google's quantum image search, it will give me an array of lolcat images to choose from, but until I open the image we won't know if the lolcat is funny or not funny?
That makes sense.
Google Scientist: Actually, before you look at the image the lolcat is in a state of superposition.
Before your look at the photo it can be both funny AND not funny.
By the act of you observing the photo it settles into one of those two states.
Test user: So there's a 50/50 chance of the exact same photo being funny or not funny?
Google Scientist: Essentially yes.
Well, unless you go by the "many worlds" model, which states that if you look at the picture, you become entangled with the lolcat, so that the observation of the humor of the lolcat, and the actual humor of the lolcat are joined together.
There will exist a universe where you find the image funny, and a universe where you find the image not funny, but these two universes cannot inform each other of these two different states.
Test User: I think I understand.
Google Scientist: Go ahead, click on one of the images from the search.
Test User: Now, you're sure nothing bad will happen?
No black holes will open up or anything?
Google Scientist (amused): Yes, I'm absolutely sure.
Test User: OK, I'll try this one.
[cheezburger.com]  
(The user clicks the image.
) 
Test User: OH NOES!
(faints.)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422828</id>
	<title>Next on Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260722220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google SSL: Search for SSL keys, kindly recovered by Google using quantum computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google SSL : Search for SSL keys , kindly recovered by Google using quantum computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google SSL: Search for SSL keys, kindly recovered by Google using quantum computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423570</id>
	<title>Re:Already Skynet protects itself</title>
	<author>Pflipp</author>
	<datestamp>1260729420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google has made it difficult both to find out where they keep their data centers and how many they have.</p></div><p>Well, you can get to know either, but just not both at the same time.</p><p>That's quantum for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has made it difficult both to find out where they keep their data centers and how many they have.Well , you can get to know either , but just not both at the same time.That 's quantum for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has made it difficult both to find out where they keep their data centers and how many they have.Well, you can get to know either, but just not both at the same time.That's quantum for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422706</id>
	<title>Noooooo</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1260721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... for three years been quietly developing a quantum computer that can identify particular objects in a database of stills or video</p></div><p>I call foul - they're changing the results by observing it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... for three years been quietly developing a quantum computer that can identify particular objects in a database of stills or videoI call foul - they 're changing the results by observing it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... for three years been quietly developing a quantum computer that can identify particular objects in a database of stills or videoI call foul - they're changing the results by observing it!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30428564</id>
	<title>making stuff up</title>
	<author>FreakyGreenLeaky</author>
	<datestamp>1260734040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>quantum bits &mdash; or qubits &mdash; encoded in magnetically coupled superconducting loops</i></p><p>You just can't make this stuff up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>quantum bits    or qubits    encoded in magnetically coupled superconducting loopsYou just ca n't make this stuff up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quantum bits — or qubits — encoded in magnetically coupled superconducting loopsYou just can't make this stuff up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423172</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>bperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1260725460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the GP says, what D-Wave is claiming is pretty much not physically possible.  And what they've demonstrated is possible to emulate with classical computers.</p><p>That Google is working with them is interesting.  But D-Wave still looks exactly like an investment scam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the GP says , what D-Wave is claiming is pretty much not physically possible .
And what they 've demonstrated is possible to emulate with classical computers.That Google is working with them is interesting .
But D-Wave still looks exactly like an investment scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the GP says, what D-Wave is claiming is pretty much not physically possible.
And what they've demonstrated is possible to emulate with classical computers.That Google is working with them is interesting.
But D-Wave still looks exactly like an investment scam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423126</id>
	<title>Quantum Computing Days</title>
	<author>Sleen</author>
	<datestamp>1260725280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, there are some excellent introductory lectures as an introduction to quantum computing here:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I56UugZ\_8DI" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I56UugZ\_8DI</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Given by Hartmut Neven with a guest appearance from D-Wave on day 2.  Watch all of the them including day 3!</p><p>Fascinating topic, though quickly delivered and worth further study and above all experimentation.</p><p>It awesome that google supports work like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , there are some excellent introductory lectures as an introduction to quantum computing here : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = I56UugZ \ _8DI [ youtube.com ] Given by Hartmut Neven with a guest appearance from D-Wave on day 2 .
Watch all of the them including day 3 ! Fascinating topic , though quickly delivered and worth further study and above all experimentation.It awesome that google supports work like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, there are some excellent introductory lectures as an introduction to quantum computing here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I56UugZ\_8DI [youtube.com]Given by Hartmut Neven with a guest appearance from D-Wave on day 2.
Watch all of the them including day 3!Fascinating topic, though quickly delivered and worth further study and above all experimentation.It awesome that google supports work like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30429852</id>
	<title>Re:Already Skynet protects itself</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1260798060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember when Google went public and you wondered if they were going to be able to make money?  I mean, yeah, it's a smart company, but they were just a search engine and so many other tech IPOs were based in fantasy.
<br> <br>
I'm so proud of them.  We actually got a research company out of the internet boom.  Having Google around easily replaces the loss of creative shops like Sun.  I guess Google is on the level of Microsoft and IBM now.
<br> <br>
Yeah it's fun to call them SkyNet or whatever, but as long as you're doing 99.9\% of your web work unencrypted, phone calls unencrypted, cell phone blasting out your location, Google is pretty far down on the list of threats compared to your jealous and cock-eating next door neighbor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when Google went public and you wondered if they were going to be able to make money ?
I mean , yeah , it 's a smart company , but they were just a search engine and so many other tech IPOs were based in fantasy .
I 'm so proud of them .
We actually got a research company out of the internet boom .
Having Google around easily replaces the loss of creative shops like Sun .
I guess Google is on the level of Microsoft and IBM now .
Yeah it 's fun to call them SkyNet or whatever , but as long as you 're doing 99.9 \ % of your web work unencrypted , phone calls unencrypted , cell phone blasting out your location , Google is pretty far down on the list of threats compared to your jealous and cock-eating next door neighbor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when Google went public and you wondered if they were going to be able to make money?
I mean, yeah, it's a smart company, but they were just a search engine and so many other tech IPOs were based in fantasy.
I'm so proud of them.
We actually got a research company out of the internet boom.
Having Google around easily replaces the loss of creative shops like Sun.
I guess Google is on the level of Microsoft and IBM now.
Yeah it's fun to call them SkyNet or whatever, but as long as you're doing 99.9\% of your web work unencrypted, phone calls unencrypted, cell phone blasting out your location, Google is pretty far down on the list of threats compared to your jealous and cock-eating next door neighbor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424384</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1260736680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, that post really implies that Google has access to one of these quantum chips, and has tested it.  If this is true, this is <b>HUGE</b> news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that post really implies that Google has access to one of these quantum chips , and has tested it .
If this is true , this is HUGE news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that post really implies that Google has access to one of these quantum chips, and has tested it.
If this is true, this is HUGE news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30429988</id>
	<title>Re:"Quantum Computing" the next "Cloud Computing"?</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1260799560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about middleware?  How's that one going?
<br> <br>
I'll be damned if I even remember what it was.  I think I wrote some of it though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about middleware ?
How 's that one going ?
I 'll be damned if I even remember what it was .
I think I wrote some of it though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about middleware?
How's that one going?
I'll be damned if I even remember what it was.
I think I wrote some of it though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427846</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260723960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>D-Wave has not made a digital quantum computer (or else, they would get a *lot* more attention).  From what I understand, they have made some sort of quantum analog computer.  Which would be useless for something like cryptography, but more or less ideal for fuzzy matching problems, like image matching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>D-Wave has not made a digital quantum computer ( or else , they would get a * lot * more attention ) .
From what I understand , they have made some sort of quantum analog computer .
Which would be useless for something like cryptography , but more or less ideal for fuzzy matching problems , like image matching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D-Wave has not made a digital quantum computer (or else, they would get a *lot* more attention).
From what I understand, they have made some sort of quantum analog computer.
Which would be useless for something like cryptography, but more or less ideal for fuzzy matching problems, like image matching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424338</id>
	<title>**Useful** quantum computing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260736320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have made fusion reactors powered by a 9-volt battery.  Sure their a cheap neutron source - other than that they are pretty much absolutely useless.  They will never power your toaster or ipod. They require many orders of magnitude more input power than will ever be recovered by resulting fusion reactions.</p><p>Making a functional quantum computer with a few qubits has been done by a number of groups. Unfortunately its also pointless as it will not gain you anything above a classicical electron pushing system.  If you want better performance you should be looking at using optics or plasmons to replace todays painfully slow electron pushing circuts.  They are much cheaper from an operational perspective as well when you factor in cryogenic cooling requirments.</p><p>Making a quantum computer with enough qbits in a single coherent operation to be a useful quantum computer (Breaking crypto, solving NP..etc) is extremely difficult - has never been done before (wink wink nudge nudge NSA) and may not even be possible.</p><p>D-Wave seems to be playing with 9-volt batteries while claiming to have a functional Mr Fusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have made fusion reactors powered by a 9-volt battery .
Sure their a cheap neutron source - other than that they are pretty much absolutely useless .
They will never power your toaster or ipod .
They require many orders of magnitude more input power than will ever be recovered by resulting fusion reactions.Making a functional quantum computer with a few qubits has been done by a number of groups .
Unfortunately its also pointless as it will not gain you anything above a classicical electron pushing system .
If you want better performance you should be looking at using optics or plasmons to replace todays painfully slow electron pushing circuts .
They are much cheaper from an operational perspective as well when you factor in cryogenic cooling requirments.Making a quantum computer with enough qbits in a single coherent operation to be a useful quantum computer ( Breaking crypto , solving NP..etc ) is extremely difficult - has never been done before ( wink wink nudge nudge NSA ) and may not even be possible.D-Wave seems to be playing with 9-volt batteries while claiming to have a functional Mr Fusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have made fusion reactors powered by a 9-volt battery.
Sure their a cheap neutron source - other than that they are pretty much absolutely useless.
They will never power your toaster or ipod.
They require many orders of magnitude more input power than will ever be recovered by resulting fusion reactions.Making a functional quantum computer with a few qubits has been done by a number of groups.
Unfortunately its also pointless as it will not gain you anything above a classicical electron pushing system.
If you want better performance you should be looking at using optics or plasmons to replace todays painfully slow electron pushing circuts.
They are much cheaper from an operational perspective as well when you factor in cryogenic cooling requirments.Making a quantum computer with enough qbits in a single coherent operation to be a useful quantum computer (Breaking crypto, solving NP..etc) is extremely difficult - has never been done before (wink wink nudge nudge NSA) and may not even be possible.D-Wave seems to be playing with 9-volt batteries while claiming to have a functional Mr Fusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427272</id>
	<title>Google's quantum image analysis is people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260717600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it?</p><p>I was randomly clicking around the google image search, and now they have a "game" under beta where you and a randomly chosen partner try to name various features and qualities in as many pictures as you can in under 2 minutes. And then when you and your partner have matching names for a picture that aren't already used, you get points and move on to the next picture. I guess there could be a quantum factor in two random people agreeing on a discription when they have no other communication. I'd say using non-redeemable points (good for nothing other than bragging rights) is definitely a clever way of using crowd-sourcing the work for free in order to do a complex AI related task like image analysis.</p><p>I think it's not without some unintended side effects though. Any picture with more than one guy in it that doesn't have an obvious work/family/sports aspect seems to get labeled "gay". (And you can tell this because it's often on the list of words you can't use anymore.) I suspect this may have some humorous consequences if there's not enough forethought to adequately filter the quantum-crowdsourced analysis for (funny?) words that only seem useful for moving on to the next pic.</p><p>I'm also curious if the "two random people agreeing on random thing" with no other communication can be considered useful for other complex tasks requiring analysis. I would think so at least. Maybe something like protein folding might make faster progress if they could package it as a facebook game with a scoring system and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it ? I was randomly clicking around the google image search , and now they have a " game " under beta where you and a randomly chosen partner try to name various features and qualities in as many pictures as you can in under 2 minutes .
And then when you and your partner have matching names for a picture that are n't already used , you get points and move on to the next picture .
I guess there could be a quantum factor in two random people agreeing on a discription when they have no other communication .
I 'd say using non-redeemable points ( good for nothing other than bragging rights ) is definitely a clever way of using crowd-sourcing the work for free in order to do a complex AI related task like image analysis.I think it 's not without some unintended side effects though .
Any picture with more than one guy in it that does n't have an obvious work/family/sports aspect seems to get labeled " gay " .
( And you can tell this because it 's often on the list of words you ca n't use anymore .
) I suspect this may have some humorous consequences if there 's not enough forethought to adequately filter the quantum-crowdsourced analysis for ( funny ?
) words that only seem useful for moving on to the next pic.I 'm also curious if the " two random people agreeing on random thing " with no other communication can be considered useful for other complex tasks requiring analysis .
I would think so at least .
Maybe something like protein folding might make faster progress if they could package it as a facebook game with a scoring system and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it?I was randomly clicking around the google image search, and now they have a "game" under beta where you and a randomly chosen partner try to name various features and qualities in as many pictures as you can in under 2 minutes.
And then when you and your partner have matching names for a picture that aren't already used, you get points and move on to the next picture.
I guess there could be a quantum factor in two random people agreeing on a discription when they have no other communication.
I'd say using non-redeemable points (good for nothing other than bragging rights) is definitely a clever way of using crowd-sourcing the work for free in order to do a complex AI related task like image analysis.I think it's not without some unintended side effects though.
Any picture with more than one guy in it that doesn't have an obvious work/family/sports aspect seems to get labeled "gay".
(And you can tell this because it's often on the list of words you can't use anymore.
) I suspect this may have some humorous consequences if there's not enough forethought to adequately filter the quantum-crowdsourced analysis for (funny?
) words that only seem useful for moving on to the next pic.I'm also curious if the "two random people agreeing on random thing" with no other communication can be considered useful for other complex tasks requiring analysis.
I would think so at least.
Maybe something like protein folding might make faster progress if they could package it as a facebook game with a scoring system and all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056</id>
	<title>I literally cannot tell if they are serious.</title>
	<author>Eric S. Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1260724620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of <i>Johnny Mnemonic</i>:</p><blockquote><div><p><i>adiabatic quantum algorithm by magnetically coupling superconducting loops called rf-squid flux qubits.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Not only can I not tell if they're serious, I can't even tell if that means anything.</p><p>The math they present, or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover's algorithm, is also completely beyond me.  I blame Alan Turing for all of this:  if he'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math, I'd probably be able to understand computer science.</p><p>As it is, I have to assign a probability <i>p</i>=0.5 to Google posting another blog entry tomorrow in which they admit to making the whole thing up and being tempted to include a reference to "Cookie Monster's postulate" along side "Grover's algorithm".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of Johnny Mnemonic : adiabatic quantum algorithm by magnetically coupling superconducting loops called rf-squid flux qubits .
Not only can I not tell if they 're serious , I ca n't even tell if that means anything.The math they present , or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover 's algorithm , is also completely beyond me .
I blame Alan Turing for all of this : if he 'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math , I 'd probably be able to understand computer science.As it is , I have to assign a probability p = 0.5 to Google posting another blog entry tomorrow in which they admit to making the whole thing up and being tempted to include a reference to " Cookie Monster 's postulate " along side " Grover 's algorithm " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of Johnny Mnemonic:adiabatic quantum algorithm by magnetically coupling superconducting loops called rf-squid flux qubits.
Not only can I not tell if they're serious, I can't even tell if that means anything.The math they present, or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover's algorithm, is also completely beyond me.
I blame Alan Turing for all of this:  if he'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math, I'd probably be able to understand computer science.As it is, I have to assign a probability p=0.5 to Google posting another blog entry tomorrow in which they admit to making the whole thing up and being tempted to include a reference to "Cookie Monster's postulate" along side "Grover's algorithm".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30435694</id>
	<title>Re:I literally cannot tell if they are serious.</title>
	<author>da cog</author>
	<datestamp>1260786480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazingly enough, that phrase really does mean something.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>"adiabatic quantum algorithm" = algorithm that works by initializing a quantum system into a ground state and then slowly (== "adiabatically") changing the interactions of the system so that the final ground state contains an encoded version of the solution</p><p>"magnetically coupling" = the interactions between the "qubits" in the system are magnetic, which means that they physically want to "line up" (or anti-"line up") with each other just like regular magnets</p><p>"superconducting loops" = a conductive loop --- like a loop etched in a semi-conductor --- that has been made so cold that it is superconductive;  currents going in a loop create a magnetic field that points through the loop whose direction depends on whether the current is clockwise or counter-clockwise, and the magnetic interactions mean that these "loops" tend to prefer to have their magnetic fields pointing in the same direction (or the opposite direction)</p><p>"flux qubits" = a qubit engineered from such a superconducting loop, whose "0" is the magnetic field going one way and whose "1" is the magnetic field going the other way;  magnetic field passing through surface == "flux"</p><p>"rf-squid" = AC squid instead of DC squid, though I don't know enough to speak more precisely about the difference</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazingly enough , that phrase really does mean something .
: - ) " adiabatic quantum algorithm " = algorithm that works by initializing a quantum system into a ground state and then slowly ( = = " adiabatically " ) changing the interactions of the system so that the final ground state contains an encoded version of the solution " magnetically coupling " = the interactions between the " qubits " in the system are magnetic , which means that they physically want to " line up " ( or anti- " line up " ) with each other just like regular magnets " superconducting loops " = a conductive loop --- like a loop etched in a semi-conductor --- that has been made so cold that it is superconductive ; currents going in a loop create a magnetic field that points through the loop whose direction depends on whether the current is clockwise or counter-clockwise , and the magnetic interactions mean that these " loops " tend to prefer to have their magnetic fields pointing in the same direction ( or the opposite direction ) " flux qubits " = a qubit engineered from such a superconducting loop , whose " 0 " is the magnetic field going one way and whose " 1 " is the magnetic field going the other way ; magnetic field passing through surface = = " flux " " rf-squid " = AC squid instead of DC squid , though I do n't know enough to speak more precisely about the difference</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazingly enough, that phrase really does mean something.
:-)"adiabatic quantum algorithm" = algorithm that works by initializing a quantum system into a ground state and then slowly (== "adiabatically") changing the interactions of the system so that the final ground state contains an encoded version of the solution"magnetically coupling" = the interactions between the "qubits" in the system are magnetic, which means that they physically want to "line up" (or anti-"line up") with each other just like regular magnets"superconducting loops" = a conductive loop --- like a loop etched in a semi-conductor --- that has been made so cold that it is superconductive;  currents going in a loop create a magnetic field that points through the loop whose direction depends on whether the current is clockwise or counter-clockwise, and the magnetic interactions mean that these "loops" tend to prefer to have their magnetic fields pointing in the same direction (or the opposite direction)"flux qubits" = a qubit engineered from such a superconducting loop, whose "0" is the magnetic field going one way and whose "1" is the magnetic field going the other way;  magnetic field passing through surface == "flux""rf-squid" = AC squid instead of DC squid, though I don't know enough to speak more precisely about the difference</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422972</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260723360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How fortunate for Google that they have you to reveal the truth. I'm sure a multinational company specializing in information technology never thought of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How fortunate for Google that they have you to reveal the truth .
I 'm sure a multinational company specializing in information technology never thought of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How fortunate for Google that they have you to reveal the truth.
I'm sure a multinational company specializing in information technology never thought of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423102</id>
	<title>WOOT 7P</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260725040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>vit4lity. Its and distraction</htmltext>
<tokenext>vit4lity .
Its and distraction</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vit4lity.
Its and distraction</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30426790</id>
	<title>Re:Millions are now wondering.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260713700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has a redundant array of interchangeable cats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has a redundant array of interchangeable cats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has a redundant array of interchangeable cats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422962</id>
	<title>DSL Fast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260723300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People out of work, banks folding, foreclosures all around. The speed of your damn servers does me no good if I can't afford broadband.</p><p>Our local library closed so I had to get a cheap DSL connection. And it is NOT cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People out of work , banks folding , foreclosures all around .
The speed of your damn servers does me no good if I ca n't afford broadband.Our local library closed so I had to get a cheap DSL connection .
And it is NOT cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People out of work, banks folding, foreclosures all around.
The speed of your damn servers does me no good if I can't afford broadband.Our local library closed so I had to get a cheap DSL connection.
And it is NOT cheap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423724</id>
	<title>finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260730680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally some technology from google that is not some trivial extension of existing stuff...<br>I guess it will be long though, before we can expect our flying cars...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally some technology from google that is not some trivial extension of existing stuff...I guess it will be long though , before we can expect our flying cars.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally some technology from google that is not some trivial extension of existing stuff...I guess it will be long though, before we can expect our flying cars...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422866</id>
	<title>"Quantum Computing" the next "Cloud Computing"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260722520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will faux "quantum computing" become the next over-hyped marketing "strategy" of numerous vendors, much like "cloud computing" has become? Will we be subjected to endless presentations, advertisements, adverblogs, promotions and webcasts about how fantastic it is, even though it doesn't deliver on any of its promises?</p><p>I sure as fuck hope not. It's difficult enough already at my company just getting a simple web server set up. We spend more time fighting off idiot managers who insist we just use "the cloud" and the server will just magically happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will faux " quantum computing " become the next over-hyped marketing " strategy " of numerous vendors , much like " cloud computing " has become ?
Will we be subjected to endless presentations , advertisements , adverblogs , promotions and webcasts about how fantastic it is , even though it does n't deliver on any of its promises ? I sure as fuck hope not .
It 's difficult enough already at my company just getting a simple web server set up .
We spend more time fighting off idiot managers who insist we just use " the cloud " and the server will just magically happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will faux "quantum computing" become the next over-hyped marketing "strategy" of numerous vendors, much like "cloud computing" has become?
Will we be subjected to endless presentations, advertisements, adverblogs, promotions and webcasts about how fantastic it is, even though it doesn't deliver on any of its promises?I sure as fuck hope not.
It's difficult enough already at my company just getting a simple web server set up.
We spend more time fighting off idiot managers who insist we just use "the cloud" and the server will just magically happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424618</id>
	<title>I find it suprising that they are using it for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260695400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised they are using the tech for image pattern searching. Wonder if they got any government grants also.<br>Still I'm glad google is actually trying to innovate instead of horde its money like some other companies I know.<br>Cough Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised they are using the tech for image pattern searching .
Wonder if they got any government grants also.Still I 'm glad google is actually trying to innovate instead of horde its money like some other companies I know.Cough Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised they are using the tech for image pattern searching.
Wonder if they got any government grants also.Still I'm glad google is actually trying to innovate instead of horde its money like some other companies I know.Cough Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30428834</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260781560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expensive specialized blackboxes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expensive specialized blackboxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expensive specialized blackboxes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423942</id>
	<title>Re:Already Skynet protects itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260732720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is clearly preparation for setting up Skynet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is clearly preparation for setting up Skynet .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is clearly preparation for setting up Skynet.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784</id>
	<title>Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1260721740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I trust Google not to do anything unbelievably stupid (a bit silly perhaps, but nothing too absurd) but thinking that D-Wave can make a quantum computer is a very, very bad idea. Now it sounds like Google has been working on the algorithm side and I suspect that they're doing good work. The trouble is that D-Wave is doing the hardware. This is a company that has yet to demonstrate any success whatsoever.</p><p>They frequently release press updates saying that they have added more bits to the machine but they have never shown it to work for even a small number of bits. The physicists who developed the idea of an adiabatic quantum computer say that D-Wave seems to have misinterpreted their theory to make unrealistic claims and the whole thing is regarded as a bit of a joke in the physics community.</p><p>That said, developing the algorithms is a worthwhile thing to do so Google may not be relying on D-Wave to justify their research. I hope not. D-Wave may actually be on to something big that they haven't revealed to the scientific community, but probably not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust Google not to do anything unbelievably stupid ( a bit silly perhaps , but nothing too absurd ) but thinking that D-Wave can make a quantum computer is a very , very bad idea .
Now it sounds like Google has been working on the algorithm side and I suspect that they 're doing good work .
The trouble is that D-Wave is doing the hardware .
This is a company that has yet to demonstrate any success whatsoever.They frequently release press updates saying that they have added more bits to the machine but they have never shown it to work for even a small number of bits .
The physicists who developed the idea of an adiabatic quantum computer say that D-Wave seems to have misinterpreted their theory to make unrealistic claims and the whole thing is regarded as a bit of a joke in the physics community.That said , developing the algorithms is a worthwhile thing to do so Google may not be relying on D-Wave to justify their research .
I hope not .
D-Wave may actually be on to something big that they have n't revealed to the scientific community , but probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust Google not to do anything unbelievably stupid (a bit silly perhaps, but nothing too absurd) but thinking that D-Wave can make a quantum computer is a very, very bad idea.
Now it sounds like Google has been working on the algorithm side and I suspect that they're doing good work.
The trouble is that D-Wave is doing the hardware.
This is a company that has yet to demonstrate any success whatsoever.They frequently release press updates saying that they have added more bits to the machine but they have never shown it to work for even a small number of bits.
The physicists who developed the idea of an adiabatic quantum computer say that D-Wave seems to have misinterpreted their theory to make unrealistic claims and the whole thing is regarded as a bit of a joke in the physics community.That said, developing the algorithms is a worthwhile thing to do so Google may not be relying on D-Wave to justify their research.
I hope not.
D-Wave may actually be on to something big that they haven't revealed to the scientific community, but probably not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423156</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1260725400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait until all the data's in. I suspect this will revealed to be a coincidence; perhaps not, but I still believe that to be likely. In any case, search for D-Wave and have a read through the link I posted in my follow-up. D-Wave has made some completely incorrect statements in the past and a few out-and-out lies. Maybe they have pulled off what they claim, but there are some very valid doubts raised by the leading researchers in the field. They have certainly <i>never</i> proved <i>quantum</i> operation in a public demonstration.</p><p>From TFA: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, we mention that the experiments presented here were not designed to test the quantumness
of the hardware. Results of such tests will be reported elsewhere.</p></div><p> Wait until those tests are published in a public forum and are analyzed by experts (not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ers) before assuming that they in any way have a quantum computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until all the data 's in .
I suspect this will revealed to be a coincidence ; perhaps not , but I still believe that to be likely .
In any case , search for D-Wave and have a read through the link I posted in my follow-up .
D-Wave has made some completely incorrect statements in the past and a few out-and-out lies .
Maybe they have pulled off what they claim , but there are some very valid doubts raised by the leading researchers in the field .
They have certainly never proved quantum operation in a public demonstration.From TFA : Finally , we mention that the experiments presented here were not designed to test the quantumness of the hardware .
Results of such tests will be reported elsewhere .
Wait until those tests are published in a public forum and are analyzed by experts ( not ./ers ) before assuming that they in any way have a quantum computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until all the data's in.
I suspect this will revealed to be a coincidence; perhaps not, but I still believe that to be likely.
In any case, search for D-Wave and have a read through the link I posted in my follow-up.
D-Wave has made some completely incorrect statements in the past and a few out-and-out lies.
Maybe they have pulled off what they claim, but there are some very valid doubts raised by the leading researchers in the field.
They have certainly never proved quantum operation in a public demonstration.From TFA: Finally, we mention that the experiments presented here were not designed to test the quantumness
of the hardware.
Results of such tests will be reported elsewhere.
Wait until those tests are published in a public forum and are analyzed by experts (not ./ers) before assuming that they in any way have a quantum computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424154</id>
	<title>So, tell me if I get this straight...</title>
	<author>The Living Fractal</author>
	<datestamp>1260734700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've read, this is weakly analogous to an ADC.... Let's call it a QDC.</p><p>They've basically taken quantum interaction and converted or translated the interaction into a binary format.  Like taking an analog sine wave and converting it into binary.  Only much more complex.</p><p>The resulting 'trained' binary system runs conventionally, but is much better than anything someone would've written by 'hand'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've read , this is weakly analogous to an ADC.... Let 's call it a QDC.They 've basically taken quantum interaction and converted or translated the interaction into a binary format .
Like taking an analog sine wave and converting it into binary .
Only much more complex.The resulting 'trained ' binary system runs conventionally , but is much better than anything someone would 've written by 'hand' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've read, this is weakly analogous to an ADC.... Let's call it a QDC.They've basically taken quantum interaction and converted or translated the interaction into a binary format.
Like taking an analog sine wave and converting it into binary.
Only much more complex.The resulting 'trained' binary system runs conventionally, but is much better than anything someone would've written by 'hand'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427152</id>
	<title>Re:"Quantum Computing" the next "Cloud Computing"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260716460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you can always tell your company that the computers you plan to buy utilize quantum mechanics to do their calculation. And you'll not even be lying: The transistor, base element of any digital electronics, indeed is based on quantum mechanics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you can always tell your company that the computers you plan to buy utilize quantum mechanics to do their calculation .
And you 'll not even be lying : The transistor , base element of any digital electronics , indeed is based on quantum mechanics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you can always tell your company that the computers you plan to buy utilize quantum mechanics to do their calculation.
And you'll not even be lying: The transistor, base element of any digital electronics, indeed is based on quantum mechanics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30425066</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260698700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they haven't published anything because Google won't let them? Ever think of that smart ass?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they have n't published anything because Google wo n't let them ?
Ever think of that smart ass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they haven't published anything because Google won't let them?
Ever think of that smart ass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423450</id>
	<title>Don't open that</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1260728220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only the thing would keep working after someone looks at the search results for "cat"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only the thing would keep working after someone looks at the search results for " cat " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only the thing would keep working after someone looks at the search results for "cat"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423076</id>
	<title>Detail Search</title>
	<author>nanospook</author>
	<datestamp>1260724860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would be really useful is if the software can "recognize" details about an image without a human doing so. E.g. Is a car, with red paint, certain model. Is a girl, white tshirt, nipples are showing, hair is in a bun, looks like a dancer, recognized as "this" individual, Then searchers can really search for images that fit patterns and find them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be really useful is if the software can " recognize " details about an image without a human doing so .
E.g. Is a car , with red paint , certain model .
Is a girl , white tshirt , nipples are showing , hair is in a bun , looks like a dancer , recognized as " this " individual , Then searchers can really search for images that fit patterns and find them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be really useful is if the software can "recognize" details about an image without a human doing so.
E.g. Is a car, with red paint, certain model.
Is a girl, white tshirt, nipples are showing, hair is in a bun, looks like a dancer, recognized as "this" individual, Then searchers can really search for images that fit patterns and find them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424302</id>
	<title>D-Wave's potential pitfalls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260736080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with D-Wave&rsquo;s approach is that it is not clear how well it can scale.  Their adiabatic strategy involves starting in the ground state of one physical system, transforming it into another system very slowly ( &ldquo;adiabatically&rdquo; == very slowly), and then hoping that they stay in the ground state all the way to the end of the procedure;  if they succeed in this, then they can read out the new state and they have the answer that they want.</p><p>The problem is that this only works as long as it is hard for the system to bump itself up into an excited state.  However, as you attack larger and larger problems, the &ldquo;energy gap&rdquo; between the ground state and the first excited state shrinks exponentially with the size of the problem, greatly increasing the probability that you won&rsquo;t end up with the right answer at the end of the computation.</p><p>In order to get around this problem, you need to do two things.  First, you need to cool the system down so that its temperature is less than the energy gap.  However, D-Wave&rsquo;s cooling system does not accomplish this --- their temperature is too high.  In fact, they freely admit that their temperature is larger than the energy gap, it&rsquo;s just that they are gambling that in practice they can get away with it.</p><p>Second, you need to run the transformation very slowly --- at a speed that is roughly proportionate to the size of the energy gap.  This might also turn out to case problems for D-Wave as they start scaling up their system to attack useful problems.  Furthermore, although they have demonstrated a case where their computer shows a speedup over classical algorithms, this should be taken with a great of salt because as I understand it they basically applied their algorithm in a case where conditions favored it.  (Mind you, that isn&rsquo;t in itself a bad thing --- it is good to understand the conditions under which an existing quantum computer can ever beat an existing classical computer;  given the infancy status of the field, I amazed that this can be done at all!)</p><p>So in short:  no, D-Wave is not a scam, but they are taking a gamble that certain theoretical problems will not bite them in practice, and most QC researches tend to believe that they will lose this gamble even though we hope that they will win it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with D-Wave    s approach is that it is not clear how well it can scale .
Their adiabatic strategy involves starting in the ground state of one physical system , transforming it into another system very slowly (    adiabatically    = = very slowly ) , and then hoping that they stay in the ground state all the way to the end of the procedure ; if they succeed in this , then they can read out the new state and they have the answer that they want.The problem is that this only works as long as it is hard for the system to bump itself up into an excited state .
However , as you attack larger and larger problems , the    energy gap    between the ground state and the first excited state shrinks exponentially with the size of the problem , greatly increasing the probability that you won    t end up with the right answer at the end of the computation.In order to get around this problem , you need to do two things .
First , you need to cool the system down so that its temperature is less than the energy gap .
However , D-Wave    s cooling system does not accomplish this --- their temperature is too high .
In fact , they freely admit that their temperature is larger than the energy gap , it    s just that they are gambling that in practice they can get away with it.Second , you need to run the transformation very slowly --- at a speed that is roughly proportionate to the size of the energy gap .
This might also turn out to case problems for D-Wave as they start scaling up their system to attack useful problems .
Furthermore , although they have demonstrated a case where their computer shows a speedup over classical algorithms , this should be taken with a great of salt because as I understand it they basically applied their algorithm in a case where conditions favored it .
( Mind you , that isn    t in itself a bad thing --- it is good to understand the conditions under which an existing quantum computer can ever beat an existing classical computer ; given the infancy status of the field , I amazed that this can be done at all !
) So in short : no , D-Wave is not a scam , but they are taking a gamble that certain theoretical problems will not bite them in practice , and most QC researches tend to believe that they will lose this gamble even though we hope that they will win it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with D-Wave’s approach is that it is not clear how well it can scale.
Their adiabatic strategy involves starting in the ground state of one physical system, transforming it into another system very slowly ( “adiabatically” == very slowly), and then hoping that they stay in the ground state all the way to the end of the procedure;  if they succeed in this, then they can read out the new state and they have the answer that they want.The problem is that this only works as long as it is hard for the system to bump itself up into an excited state.
However, as you attack larger and larger problems, the “energy gap” between the ground state and the first excited state shrinks exponentially with the size of the problem, greatly increasing the probability that you won’t end up with the right answer at the end of the computation.In order to get around this problem, you need to do two things.
First, you need to cool the system down so that its temperature is less than the energy gap.
However, D-Wave’s cooling system does not accomplish this --- their temperature is too high.
In fact, they freely admit that their temperature is larger than the energy gap, it’s just that they are gambling that in practice they can get away with it.Second, you need to run the transformation very slowly --- at a speed that is roughly proportionate to the size of the energy gap.
This might also turn out to case problems for D-Wave as they start scaling up their system to attack useful problems.
Furthermore, although they have demonstrated a case where their computer shows a speedup over classical algorithms, this should be taken with a great of salt because as I understand it they basically applied their algorithm in a case where conditions favored it.
(Mind you, that isn’t in itself a bad thing --- it is good to understand the conditions under which an existing quantum computer can ever beat an existing classical computer;  given the infancy status of the field, I amazed that this can be done at all!
)So in short:  no, D-Wave is not a scam, but they are taking a gamble that certain theoretical problems will not bite them in practice, and most QC researches tend to believe that they will lose this gamble even though we hope that they will win it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423576</id>
	<title>Re:I literally cannot tell if they are serious.</title>
	<author>who knows my name</author>
	<datestamp>1260729480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you did an undergraduate physics degree, I'd be surprised if you didn't know what all of those words mean. They can all be wikid (not sure I like that word)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you did an undergraduate physics degree , I 'd be surprised if you did n't know what all of those words mean .
They can all be wikid ( not sure I like that word ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you did an undergraduate physics degree, I'd be surprised if you didn't know what all of those words mean.
They can all be wikid (not sure I like that word)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422834</id>
	<title>Danger!  Qubits will generate a black hole ...</title>
	<author>cpu\_fusion</author>
	<datestamp>1260722220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if you use them to identify "goatse" !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if you use them to identify " goatse " ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if you use them to identify "goatse" !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424064</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260733860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As such, I can&rsquo;t directly evaluate D-Wave&rsquo;s central claim to have built an adiabatic quantum computer, nor have I ever tried to do so.</p></div><p>Unfortunately he can't evaluate the only statements that really matter. An overzealous marketing team means little.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As such , I can    t directly evaluate D-Wave    s central claim to have built an adiabatic quantum computer , nor have I ever tried to do so.Unfortunately he ca n't evaluate the only statements that really matter .
An overzealous marketing team means little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As such, I can’t directly evaluate D-Wave’s central claim to have built an adiabatic quantum computer, nor have I ever tried to do so.Unfortunately he can't evaluate the only statements that really matter.
An overzealous marketing team means little.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424100</id>
	<title>Say good bye to RSA</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1260734160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google is capable of this what do you think the NSA and friends are capable of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google is capable of this what do you think the NSA and friends are capable of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google is capable of this what do you think the NSA and friends are capable of?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424624</id>
	<title>Millions are now wondering.</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1260695460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Google own a cat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Google own a cat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Google own a cat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422922</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260722880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry to reply to my own comment but I should add a <a href="http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=291" title="scottaaronson.com">link</a> [scottaaronson.com]. It covers, in non technical language, the some of the objections to D-Waves claims, what kind of dubious science their people do and what is bull**** that the marketing people flat out invent. It is only one person's perspective but the guy is very, very capable of evaluating statements made by D-Wave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to reply to my own comment but I should add a link [ scottaaronson.com ] .
It covers , in non technical language , the some of the objections to D-Waves claims , what kind of dubious science their people do and what is bull * * * * that the marketing people flat out invent .
It is only one person 's perspective but the guy is very , very capable of evaluating statements made by D-Wave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to reply to my own comment but I should add a link [scottaaronson.com].
It covers, in non technical language, the some of the objections to D-Waves claims, what kind of dubious science their people do and what is bull**** that the marketing people flat out invent.
It is only one person's perspective but the guy is very, very capable of evaluating statements made by D-Wave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30433390</id>
	<title>Re:Google's quantum image analysis is people!</title>
	<author>MattSausage</author>
	<datestamp>1260817320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I played around with this a bit before, and I'm pretty sure you aren't playing against (or with) another person. Because it is an addictive little game. And going as fast as you can you get flustered and add odd things to pictures, or misspell words. And after a while (a week or two while bored at work) my 'partner' would start spouting my same crazy answers from days before, or misspell words the exact same way I did.

I'm pretty sure they are just training their image tagging programs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I played around with this a bit before , and I 'm pretty sure you are n't playing against ( or with ) another person .
Because it is an addictive little game .
And going as fast as you can you get flustered and add odd things to pictures , or misspell words .
And after a while ( a week or two while bored at work ) my 'partner ' would start spouting my same crazy answers from days before , or misspell words the exact same way I did .
I 'm pretty sure they are just training their image tagging programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I played around with this a bit before, and I'm pretty sure you aren't playing against (or with) another person.
Because it is an addictive little game.
And going as fast as you can you get flustered and add odd things to pictures, or misspell words.
And after a while (a week or two while bored at work) my 'partner' would start spouting my same crazy answers from days before, or misspell words the exact same way I did.
I'm pretty sure they are just training their image tagging programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422688</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260721020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First post</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First post</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30436978</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>Shadesofgrey</author>
	<datestamp>1260792480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scott Aaronson is not a physicist nor an engineer so therefore is not the best commentator on hardware development. He clashes with others at MIT, like Dr. T. Olando, who have designed qubits. Moreover, the link posted in two years out of date.  </p><p>Re: &ldquo;The physicists who developed the idea of an adiabatic quantum computer say that D-Wave seems to have misinterpreted their theory to make unrealistic claims and the whole thing is regarded as a bit of a joke in the physics community.&rdquo; Not exactly an accurate summary. Likely, you are reading what Aaronson posted. In 2007, Dr. U. Vazirani (Aaronson&rsquo;s supervisor) wrote <i>The Economist</i> &ldquo;Their claimed speedup over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam, Mosca and I wrote on &ldquo;The power of adiabatic quantum computing&rdquo;.&rdquo; However, <b>no paper by that title appears to exist</b>, so very likely nobody misunderstood or even understood that particular paper. He hasn&rsquo;t corrected the title for the public record. <i>The Economist</i> never published the letter. Like, Dr. Aaronson, Dr. Vazirani is hardly an expert in superconducting quantum hardware. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scott Aaronson is not a physicist nor an engineer so therefore is not the best commentator on hardware development .
He clashes with others at MIT , like Dr. T. Olando , who have designed qubits .
Moreover , the link posted in two years out of date .
Re :    The physicists who developed the idea of an adiabatic quantum computer say that D-Wave seems to have misinterpreted their theory to make unrealistic claims and the whole thing is regarded as a bit of a joke in the physics community.    Not exactly an accurate summary .
Likely , you are reading what Aaronson posted .
In 2007 , Dr. U. Vazirani ( Aaronson    s supervisor ) wrote The Economist    Their claimed speedup over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam , Mosca and I wrote on    The power of adiabatic quantum computing    .    However , no paper by that title appears to exist , so very likely nobody misunderstood or even understood that particular paper .
He hasn    t corrected the title for the public record .
The Economist never published the letter .
Like , Dr. Aaronson , Dr. Vazirani is hardly an expert in superconducting quantum hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scott Aaronson is not a physicist nor an engineer so therefore is not the best commentator on hardware development.
He clashes with others at MIT, like Dr. T. Olando, who have designed qubits.
Moreover, the link posted in two years out of date.
Re: “The physicists who developed the idea of an adiabatic quantum computer say that D-Wave seems to have misinterpreted their theory to make unrealistic claims and the whole thing is regarded as a bit of a joke in the physics community.” Not exactly an accurate summary.
Likely, you are reading what Aaronson posted.
In 2007, Dr. U. Vazirani (Aaronson’s supervisor) wrote The Economist “Their claimed speedup over classical algorithms appears to be based on a misunderstanding of a paper my colleagues van Dam, Mosca and I wrote on “The power of adiabatic quantum computing”.” However, no paper by that title appears to exist, so very likely nobody misunderstood or even understood that particular paper.
He hasn’t corrected the title for the public record.
The Economist never published the letter.
Like, Dr. Aaronson, Dr. Vazirani is hardly an expert in superconducting quantum hardware. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30430528</id>
	<title>important!</title>
	<author>SHaFT7</author>
	<datestamp>1260803820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but will it make me toast?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but will it make me toast ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but will it make me toast?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422690</id>
	<title>eat my shorts slashdot !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260721080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat my shorts slashdot !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat my shorts slashdot !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424698</id>
	<title>Re:I literally cannot tell if they are serious.</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1260696120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The math they present, or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover's algorithm, is also completely beyond me. I blame Alan Turing for all of this: if he'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math, I'd probably be able to understand computer science.</p></div></blockquote><p>You have obviously never studied <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Cantos" title="wikipedia.org">Ezra Pound</a> [wikipedia.org] or <a href="http://eliotswasteland.tripod.com/" title="tripod.com">T.S. Eliot.</a> [tripod.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The math they present , or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover 's algorithm , is also completely beyond me .
I blame Alan Turing for all of this : if he 'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math , I 'd probably be able to understand computer science.You have obviously never studied Ezra Pound [ wikipedia.org ] or T.S .
Eliot. [ tripod.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The math they present, or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover's algorithm, is also completely beyond me.
I blame Alan Turing for all of this: if he'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math, I'd probably be able to understand computer science.You have obviously never studied Ezra Pound [wikipedia.org] or T.S.
Eliot. [tripod.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422968</id>
	<title>Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1260723300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I'm sure people at Google would just pour money for three years in the first bozo that claims quantum computing without checking the validity of its claims</p><p><div class="quote"><p> We demonstrate a detector that has learned to spot cars by looking at example pictures. It was trained with adiabatic quantum optimization <b>using a D-Wave C4 Chimera chip</b>. There are still many open questions but in our experiments <b>we observed that this detector performs better than those we had trained using classical solvers</b> running on the computers we have in our data centers today</p></div><p>For the looks of it D-Wave is totally a scam... NOT</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm sure people at Google would just pour money for three years in the first bozo that claims quantum computing without checking the validity of its claims We demonstrate a detector that has learned to spot cars by looking at example pictures .
It was trained with adiabatic quantum optimization using a D-Wave C4 Chimera chip .
There are still many open questions but in our experiments we observed that this detector performs better than those we had trained using classical solvers running on the computers we have in our data centers todayFor the looks of it D-Wave is totally a scam... NOT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm sure people at Google would just pour money for three years in the first bozo that claims quantum computing without checking the validity of its claims We demonstrate a detector that has learned to spot cars by looking at example pictures.
It was trained with adiabatic quantum optimization using a D-Wave C4 Chimera chip.
There are still many open questions but in our experiments we observed that this detector performs better than those we had trained using classical solvers running on the computers we have in our data centers todayFor the looks of it D-Wave is totally a scam... NOT
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422884</id>
	<title>Google oggles</title>
	<author>HKcastaway</author>
	<datestamp>1260722520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to for Google to best look at the pictures in your drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to for Google to best look at the pictures in your drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to for Google to best look at the pictures in your drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30435694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30429852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30425066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30428834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30429988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30426790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30430022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30433390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30436978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1358250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30430022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30435694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30436978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423156
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30425066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30428834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30429852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30433390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30429988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30427152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30422834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30426790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30423724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1358250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1358250.30424338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
