Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Government Politics Technology

Quantum Computing Regulation Already? 238

Posted by Zonk from the jumping-the-gun dept.
RMX writes "A new CNet article discusses the possibility of regulating quantum computing. We already see our top tier US VCs investing in Quantum computing companies outside the country. Apparently the feds seem to think regulating the amount of technology that can be sent overseas will make the US safer." From the article: "Only rough prototypes of quantum computers presently exist. But if a large-scale model can be built, in theory it could break codes used to scramble information on the Internet, in banking, and within federal agencies. A certain class of encryption algorithms relies for security on the near-impossibility of factoring large numbers quickly. But quantum computers, at least on paper, can do that calculation millions of times faster than a conventional microprocessor. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Quantum Computing Regulation Already? More

Quantum Computing Regulation Already?

Comments Filter:

  • Catch 22 (Score:5, Funny)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:18PM (#14008688) Homepage Journal
    By reading the regulations we change them, so we can't ever know what they actually are.

    • Re:Catch 22 (Score:2, Funny)

      by mmell ( 832646 )
      (Announcer): And it's Neptune's Folly in a quantum finish

      (Prof. Farnsworth): No fair - you changed the outcome by observing it!

    • Even worse,we can only determine where this legislation is in Congress, or how fast it is moving, but not both at the same time.

  • On Paper? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ufamsm ( 928247 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:18PM (#14008689)
    "quantum computers, at least on paper, can do that calculation millions of times faster than a conventional microprocessor."
    Wow, imagine what they can do on silicone!

    • Re:On Paper? (Score:5, Funny)

      by richdun ( 672214 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:21PM (#14008730)
      Or even on silicon!

      Though what they can do with silicone may be much more, uh, er, entertaining.

      • Re:On Paper? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jerry Coffin ( 824726 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:46PM (#14009001)
        Or even on silicon!

        I know you meant this humorously, but it's probably worth noting that in reality, the quantum computers that have been built are NOT in silicon either -- in fact, they're not really based on semiconductors at all.

        They're currently (basically) a test-tube full of specially constructed "soup" of (for example) hydrogen and carbon-14 (yes, the same that's used for carbon dating) suspended in chloroform. The results from this are read using an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) machine, essentially like those used in medical imaging.

        Unfortunately, even the people doing research in this direction [qubit.org] admit that there's little likelihood of building NMR based quantum computers of more than a few (half a dozen or so) qubits, which is really too small to do much -- and the NMR-based reading of the results is also quite slow. OTOH, while they may not be particularly practical, they have managed to do real quantum computation this way.

        --
        The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

        • Waiter... (Score:2, Funny)

          by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )
          the quantum computers that have been built are NOT in silicon either -- in fact, they're not really based on semiconductors at all. ... They're currently (basically) a test-tube full of specially constructed "soup"

          Which leads to the inevitable: Waiter, is that a Quantum Computer in my soup? I ordered noodles.

    • Re:On Paper? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 70Bang ( 805280 )

      Silcone? Is a silicone computer like some women? They're fun to watch whilst they're running? (think about it)

      {back to quantum computing}

      So...exporting it is the only way to regulate it?

      When PGP went on the Thou Shalt Not Export List early in its life (thirteen? fourteen? fifteen? years ago), I always imported my copies. That meant either: 1) someone from the US exported it; or, 2) someone outside the US imported it. I'm not sure you can prove someone accidentally left a copy unprotected on a server

      • With quantum computing you may get a third option - the US does not emerge as the world leader in the field. These regulations sound a little cocky to me.
      • Silcone? Is a silicone computer like some women? They're fun to watch whilst they're running? (think about it)

        He [msn.com] did !

    • QC can also heal (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Someone else alluded to this, but I'll add to the picture:

      Quantum computers can compute on an entire state-space simultaneously, so in the first iteration of a brute-force decryption algorithm, they will find the values that satisfy the result.

      If you double the number of bits, you square the size of the state-space, but you only double the size of one iteration, so it is an ineffective way of stopping quantum cracking. Because decryption time on a QC will always be proportional to encryption time.

      But there
    • Finally, a computer with an intuitive interface.

  • It won't be surprising when it's illegal to own (Score:5, Interesting)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:18PM (#14008691) Homepage Journal
    I have no doubt the USA, Canada, and the UK will make it illegal to own one to keep code breaking superiority with the governments' spies, rather than criminal organizations.

    Does this mean that I shouldn't bother with a 28 character bank password, since it's all going to be moot anyway?
    • How naive do you have to be to think outlawing it will keep it out of the hands of criminals? Oh, I'm sorry, you must be from the guv'ment. How about finally hearing everyone who told you it's really a matter of making it more difficult.

      Any password - better than - no password

      28 character password - better than - any password of shorter length.

      29+ character password - better than - 28 character password

      That's not to say someone driven enough couldn't crack your password, you just make it somewhat harder to
    • Does this mean that I shouldn't bother with a 28 character bank password, since it's all going to be moot anyway?

      While 28 characters is probably excessive for most people, I think that my bank limits the password to 13 characters, the answer to your question is no for the following reasons. First, the system which is accepting the password, i.e. the online banking website or the ATM, can only accept passwords so quickly so no matter how fast your quantum computer can generate the combinations they can o

  • Setec Astronomy (Score:3, Informative)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:19PM (#14008697)


    The summary is a bit fuzy on the details, but here's a telling excerpt from the IBM research article on their quantum computer (link here [ibm.com]):
    A quantum computer gets its power by taking advantage of certain quantum properties of atoms or nuclei that allow them to work together as quantum bits, or "qubits," which serve simultaneously as the computer's processor and memory . By directing the interactions between qubits while keeping them isolated from the external environment, scientists enable a quantum computer to perform certain calculations, such as factoring, exponentially faster than conventional computers. When factoring large numbers using a conventional computer, each added digit roughly doubles the time to find the factors. In contrast, the quantum factoring time increases by only a constant increment with each additional digit.


    This breakthrough completely renders useles the concept of the so-called one-way function [wikipedia.org], a function which can be executed in polynomial time, but whose inverse can be executed only in exponential time. Basically, this renders just about all public-key cryptographic functions obselete on one stroke.

    Interesting times...

    • Re:Setec Astronomy (Score:4, Informative)

      by Garse Janacek ( 554329 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:32PM (#14008850)
      This breakthrough completely renders useles the concept of the so-called one-way function

      Not at all -- if you believe that quantum computers will actually work well enough to factor in the real world (many computer scientists don't -- the degree of precision required would be many orders of magnitude greater than any observations of any physical laws have ever been in a real experiment), you're only talking about making some particular one-way functions (in this case, factoring) useless.

      In fact, part of the power of quantum computing is that (even without the somewhat less plausible factoring algorithm) we would have real secure encryption -- secure based not on the assumption that factoring is hard (which it may not be), but that quantum physics is true (which it may not be, but a lot of people seem more comfortable with this assumption, at least as far as cryptography is involved).

      • Re:Setec Astronomy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @01:37PM (#14009542) Homepage
        You are referring no doubt to quantum cryptography. This is an area which actually is only related to quantum computing loosely at best. We are already capable of implementing it somewhat practically - unlike quantum computing.

        Quantum cryptography isn't really cryptography - it is instead a method of transmitting data between two points without relays which can allow sender and receiver to determine whether the transmission was intercepted. In practice it can be used for symmetric key exchange (such as a one time pad). If the key wasn't intercepted you use it, if it was then you just keep trying until the interceptor (or you) gives up.

        The problem with quantum crypto is that it requires a direct transmission of photons from Alice to Bob. You can't have a relay station in-between, unless you are willing to guarantee its security (any relay station would allow for interception of the signal when it isn't entangled - which cannot be detected).

        The bottom line right now is that it only works for very sensitive communications via line of sight or fiber optic. Most people submitting their credit card numbers to a website don't have a direct fiber optic line without retransmission between them and the merchant.

        My guess is that quantum crypto won't ever prove to be very practical for general use - except maybe in space (where lines of sight extend much farther).
      • the degree of precision required would be many orders of magnitude greater than any observations of any physical laws have ever been in a real experiment)

        This is not true. The fault-tolerance threshold--the error threshold below which an arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed to arbitrary precision with only polynomial overhead--is estimated to be anywhere from 10^-1 to 10^-7, depending on the physical system and the error model.

        Now, 10^-7 is pretty hard to reach, but we most certainly have
    • You seem to know a lot about computer science, TMM, so I was just wondering what your background is. Which university did you obtain your PhD from? Indeed, and have you published any papers? I'd be quite interested in reading some of them, if you'd be willing to provide references.

    • Re:Setec Astronomy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cpeikert ( 9457 )
      This breakthrough completely renders useles the concept of the so-called one-way function.

      Settle down, and don't believe the hype.

      So far, we don't know of any efficient quantum algorithms for solving the main problems on lattices. One-way functions and encryption schemes can be based on these lattice problems, too.

      There is no general result that says "quantum computers can invert all functions." One-way functions are still believed to exist, even in the face of quantum computing.

      • Re:Setec Astronomy (Score:3, Informative)

        by Weezul ( 52464 )
        Actually, there is some sort of result which shows that quantum computers can invert a function given as a quantum black box faster than any known classical algorithm. I think that like 8 years ago, when I read up on quantum computers, this algorithm was the ONLY speed up which was provable with lowerbounds, i.e. factoring might still be easy on an ordinary computer, but inverting a black box provably isn't. BUT the catch is that this result only provided a polynomial improvment (square root?) where as al

  • Why can't other countries develope their own? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:19PM (#14008700)
    Even if the US regulates what can be exported, how will that stop other countries from developing their own quantum computers with the same technology? We can't count on everyone else having slower computers if faster ones exist...

    • Re:Why can't other countries develope their own? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:37PM (#14008895) Homepage
      Exactly. That's why restrictions on cryptography exports were lifted in the 90s, because the stupid assumption that nobody but Americans could develop strong cryptography was proven false. All the restrictions did was hinder U.S. companies in international markets.

      Under the completely unresearched assumption that the U.S. currently has some lead in quantum computing, all restricting it can do is give some lead time before others catch up and then we have the same situation as we had with cryptography.

      Though the article doesn't make it clear that export restrictions are going to be the main thrust. If they regulate quantum computers within the U.S... well, I can only imagine the justification (teh terrorists crack your bank account!), but the detrimental-to-U.S.-interests aspect will actually be amplified as the rest of the world uses the useful tool and the U.S. forbids it.

      With any luck there will be an unexplainable outbreak of intelligence and sincerity in the government (or the appearance of such caused by commercial lobbyists) and no significant regulations come to pass.
    • Even if the US regulates what can be exported, how will that stop other countries from developing their own quantum computers with the same technology?

      PATENTS!!!

  • If you outlaw quantum computing (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:19PM (#14008707)
    Only outlaws will have quantum computing.

  • Pah! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:19PM (#14008710)
    Quantum mechanics is just a theory, so Quantum Computers will never work.

    Like the Kansas Board of Education, we need to proactively discard these so-called "scientific theories" and go back to Intelligently Designed machines, like the abacus.
    • Like the Kansas Board of Education, we need to proactively discard these so-called "scientific theories" and go back to Intelligently Designed machines, like the abacus.

      Yes, anything we can't see ourselves probably isn't real and can only be explained by a higher power. Nobody has seen 4 billion years of Evolution actually happen, so it probably didn't.

      And everyone who looks at a Q-bit sees something different!

  • Perhaps the research groups that the US is so eager to invest in should rule against import to the US if they're going to restrict exports...

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by QuantaStarFire ( 902219 ) * <ed.kehoeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:21PM (#14008723)
    But if a large-scale model can be built, in theory it could break codes used to scramble information on the Internet, in banking, and within federal agencies.

    Can't that same concept be applied to encrypting the data as well? I mean, if it can break current encryption easily, wouldn't the logic here be that it's capable of an encryption that would take even a quantum computer decades to crack? Or am I missing something here?

    • Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:28PM (#14008813)

      Actually, no. The breakthrough here isn't just a much faster computer...if that was the cse, you'd be right...just increase the length of your encryption key to compensate. The breakthrough here is a computer capable of solving formerly exponentially-difficult functions in polynomial time, rather than exponential time. It completely rewrites the rules.
    • Sort of. There is a branch of Quantum computing that will detect any eavesdropping called Quantum Cryptography [wikipedia.org]. As soon as the eavesdropper is detected, whatever they see is rendered useless by the uncertainty principle (I think ... someone more intelligent than me will probably explain it better)
      • Even if it wasn't rendered useless you could simply send a one time scratch pad and key (created by XORing the message with random bits). If an eavesdropper gets the scratch pad, you'll know it and don't send the key (or if he gets the key; don't send the scratch pad). Either way, the eavesdropper can only get random (in all ways except by comparison with data he doesn't have) bits.
    • I don't know much about quantum computing, but taking an exponential algorithm into poly time makes it theoretically tractible.

      The difference isn't a factor of 10 or 20 speedup, it's going from taking a number of seconds equal to all of the protons in the universe, to something like, the number of nails in the bin at HQ.

      Think in these terms. If modern crypto (not an expert on crypto) takes 2^n seconds to crack on a conventional computer, it'll take n seconds to crack on one of these.
    • Using an encryption algorithm that becomes only linearly more difficult to crack based on the time taken to encrypt the message isn't much good. The current systems work because the encrypted messages become exponentially more difficult to crack. For example, the time taken to find two prime factors becomes exponentially larger than the time taken just to multiply them together as the number of digits increases. So even a home computer can encrypt messages that a supercomputer would take years to crack. How
      • However no matter how many digits you use, a quantum computer computer will crack it in linear time.

        Are you sure that it would be linear time, and not polynomial time? There is a difference. For instance, linear time is always O(n), but polynomial time could be O(n^10) or more. If, for instance, cracking the key turns out to be O(n^3) (still polynomial time, but not linear time), the difference in time between a 1024-bit key and a 1-bit key would be roughly 1 billion.

        • That's true, but the difference is far,far less than the difference between an O(n^3) algorithm and an exponential algorithm. It's kind of like the difference between solving the problem 1 billion times slower and NEVER solving it before the sun burns out.
  • Since when did we think that it will only be invented here, or even that the teams working on it are only situated in the US? What would be the result be, if say, Japan invented a working 200 Qubit prototype? Does anyone think that the US would sit idly by and let the Japanese gov't say "Umm, this is potentially detrimental to our National Security infrastructure, so NO-ONE can bring any information or working models outside of the country..."

    What will they do if 3 researchers are working on this in the US,
    • Yep. It's a basic misunderstanding of the way these things work. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in; but as the current encryption software regulations demonstrate, this is something the US government Just Doesn't Get.
      • They probably get it, they're just afraid of it and legislate based on emotion.

        That this comes out now suggests the NSA just got their first working model online. Maybe they can help the Brits so they don't have to hold people for 90 days without charge so they can fish in their hard drives.

    • Then the Fed will give/con/armtwist the researchers US Citizenship and then impose US Law on them.

      They've done it before with Gerald Bull.

    • It's like the atom bomb, eventually others are going to have it too, but that doesn't necessarily mean you want to make it easy for them to get that technology.

      The fact that the government is considering regulating the technology now does make me wonder whether the NSA, who has been throwing large sums of money at the problem for years, might not be farther along in developing a quantum computer than other people know.
  • In the current day and age where the act of putting up a webpage which can be accessed by anyone around the world with an internet connection is as easy as signing into www.blogspot.com, the effort involved in stopping technology leaks such as encryption far outweighs the benefit of keeping it secret. Relying on an encryption to be safe because the algorithm or solution method is secret is akin to hiding your housekey under your doormat. Somewhere along the line, someone's going to figure it out and you're totally at their mercy after that.

    The solution, as it is in most cases of security, is to rely on methods that are simply and thoroughly uncrackable. As we saw the other day, the time to determine the factors of a 640 bit number is 5 months. As computers get faster and algorithms get better, that time will diminish. Once quantum computers arrive, those encryption algorithms will be obsolete.

    So use encryption which is not vulnerable. Don't stop the free flow of information to hide your weaknesses.
  • This is craziness. There are only two possibilities:

    1. Quantum computing ends up destroying public-key encyrption, making online banking impossible.

    In this case, what Congress is saying is that they want to shield US banks from having to switch back to physical security and authentication as soon as possible, and instead, want to allow banks a grace period, where determined criminals have an opportunity to steal citizen's money.

    2. OR, online banking is still feasible

    In which case, this was no big d

    • The really funny thing is both possibilities exist in simultaneous superposition, until some criminal tries to collapse the wavefunction by killing the ca...er...stealing someone's money.

  • 'Cause Prohibition *Always* Works so Well! (Score:3, Funny)

    by adavies42 ( 746183 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:28PM (#14008802)
    OK, who wants to write shors-algorithm-in-4-lines-of-perl, so we can start putting it in our sigs?
  • Once someone builds a quantum computer, and of course, we know that people can build them, then, its obvious that all combinatorial based encryption schemes are doomed and should not be used. The internet as we know it is dead and its time to get over it and figure out where to go next.
    • This is nonsense. Only certain types of encryption schemes (those based on problems like factoring and discrete logarithms) are broken by quantum computers. Other schemes, eg. lattice-based crypto (as mentioned in another comment here) are not known to be breakable by quantum computers. In any case, symmetric encryption schemes like DES are probably not vulnerable (well, quantum computers can get a square-root speed-up, but you can easily make your key longer to counter this).

      And what does "combinatorial ba
    • You're making me feel bad about studying quantum computing and trying to make improvements on them :P
  • QC is just getting of the ground, very early into its infacy stage and the government is already trying to kill it. Regulation does nothing but keep the small players off the field and allow the big boys to do so by government monopoly. Regulation is nothing but buying favors for protection, something that people seem to ignore.

  • Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:31PM (#14008832) Homepage
    With much of our engineering outsourced to China and India and most of the companies producing the chips and components also located overseas, just how does the US government plan on keeping any technology bottled up over here? If we don't sell it to them someone else will. Just like the Japanese sold the Russians precision computer controlled mills that allowed the Russians to make their submarines quieter by orders of magnitude. The Japanese apologized for that, which made it all better.

    It's the PGP Retardo Fed Fest all over again. Technology advances, you can only keep a secret for so long, especially depending on potentially hostile foreign governments making the devices or support devices. Particularly when those same potentially hostile governments have massive databases of information on US citizens conveniently supplied by US businesses outsourcing their data management.

    Straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel. Deal with it and move along.

    • Although America or the G8 don't have a monopoly on research opportunities I beleive they have the leadership on many research projects (computer sciences, biotech, etc.). I think what is thought as outsourcing engineering and research relates more to production and product development. What these countries benefit from is cheaper labour and/or more efficient techniques.

      It is stupid for the outsourced countries to think that they suddenly became techonology leaders because they have hundreds of engineers wo
      • Have you seen your local university's CS, EE, and Physics departments? Our country educates some of the finest students in the world. How are you going to keep that research within our borders, keep them from going home on holiday vacation? I'm sure that'll go over REALLY well.
  • There have been restrictions like this on exports for at least a generation.

    They are just trying to stay ahead of the curve this time, instead of after the horse has left the barn.
  • "Apparently the feds seem to think regulating the amount of technology that can be sent overseas will make the US safer."

    Gen. Turgidson [shouting] : "We must not allow a quantum computer gap!"

    I'm just waiting for the good doctor to try to restrain his right arm. Damn that was a funny (and thought-provoking) movie. Purity of essence ...

    -paul

  • Theoretically, we only -think- that somebody can't factor large numbers quickly, but it is has not actually been proven that this is the case. So even without quantum computing, one could still invent the algorithm that does fast factoring and then the world would change.. cause if you can do fast factoring, then a whole class of problems would be solvable more quickly.

  • Major factors influencing the U.S. edge (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @12:54PM (#14009082) Homepage
    Once upon a time, the U.S. was, more or less, the technology leader. But trends changed when business believed they should cut R&D and all other aspects of doing business that requires technological expertise. (Cutting the numbers, outsourcing, etc) They did this for short-term profit to improve their stock values... whatever the reason, it is and has proven to be extremely short-sighted.

    The result of this, the dot-com bubble bursting and perhaps a few things I can't think of at the moment, there is a massive brain-drain in the US. According to what I've read, there are fewer people signing up for technical careers. Meanwhile, in other countries, they are building their intellectual base to the point of being emerging superpowers.

    I remember the U.S. encryption export laws (are they still on the books?) and the supposed reason they were put into place. (Was it to prevent competing nations from getting our superior encryption technology or was it so we could charge people with an additional crime for trafficking in secrets using a more secure tech?) I guess it's not a really good parallel, but I do beleive this type or restriction is a bit too little and too late. The genie is out of the bottle. And unless some serious focus on science, technology and research is made, I believe the U.S. will have lost its last great commodity -- intelligence. ...I don't know why or how, but some people got it in their heads that money and profits are more important than anything else INCLUDING those factors that lead to money and profits!

  • Apocalypse Now (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
    The way that Muslim countries locked themselves into the 13th Century (their 7th Century) was to regulate innovation. Everything had to be "safe" within their (koranic) laws at the time their theocrats controlled the richest, most sophisticated, powerful, extensive empire in the world. Which forced them into impotence as rivals like Europeans copied their basic science (largely developed from a Classical legacy), and roared past them. Forcing them into colonial slavery for centuries - partly by enforcing th
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Of course I'm not kidding, Digi"Shaman". I've read the koran (multiple editions), have visited several mosques (including both the "Dome of the Rock" in Jerusalem and Hagia Sofia in Istanbul), and regularly discuss geopolitics and theology with Muslim friends of several sects and native countries.

        You are the one projecting your own beliefs about Islam, as conveniently received from your local propaganda outlet (whether US corporate, Wahabi or both). Islam means "submission", as in "submission to the will of
  • Wow, so that means that US companies won't be able to sell Chinese-built quantum computers to other countries. (Since, obviously, US companies MUST offshore all non-managerial tasks.)

  • One Giant Assumption (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @02:06PM (#14009820)
    This regulation makes one giant assumption: That the first feasible quantum computers will be developed and built here.

    In a world of outsourcing to other countries, as well as the fact that the USA doesn't have a monopoly on brain power, this whole idea could be rendered meaningless the moment someone decides to build their Q-puter[tm] in any other country with less onerous regulations!

  • Power to the People (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @02:07PM (#14009830) Homepage Journal
    An enlightened tech policy would fund cheap quantum computing. Then everyone could convert breakable encrypted data to new, less breakable encryption. The "democratization" of the tech, with Americans better encrypted than elsewhere, would not only protect national security, but fuel economic security, as foreigners looked to America for security, both tech and legal.

    Instead, our Congress and White House are run by paranoid morons whose musclebound response to any crisis is to suppress and destroy. Which is just making us less safe, discrediting us, and funding our enemies and rivals. Fortunately, it's only 12 months until 1/3 of Congress is up for election. If we get rid of these dangerous morons, maybe we'll have a chance to keep an American brand on the future. Because the "Middle Ages" is a moving window that America is rapidly coming to define.


  • Assuming that the definition of exporting is shipping the object across the US border, there shouldn't be much of a problem. Just tell the authorities that the computer went from the place of manufacture to the foreign country without passing through the space between :-)
  • This really is a case of theorists managing to pull the wool over people's eyes to convince them that the emperor has clothes. Quantum computing power is minimal. The largest quantum computer is a few bits in size. When I say 'few bits' I don't mean it has a few bits for its address bus. I mean it has a few bits of total state. Memory, "ALU", everything, adds up to a few bits. And unlike classical computers, simply sticking two-N bit quantum computers together doesn't give you a 2N-bit computer. They need t
  • IANAEE (...An Encryption Expert), so I'm asking someone who is.

    Accepted, although yet to be demonstrated in the real world on actual keys, that quantum computing may well easily compromise public key encryption systems that rely on the one-way difficulty of factoring the product of large primes. My question is, is AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) weakened in any way by quantum computers?

  • Perfect, unbreakable encryption already exists! It is called a One Time Pad, and if used properly, it doesn't matter what type of super quantum computer the other guys have!

    Now, many of you will say "There are logistics problems with one time pads that make them ineffective for things like ecommerce or cell phones etc.", and I agree. But banning the export of quantum computers isn't to protect ecommerce or cell phones... it is to protect high level diplomatic and military secrets. A U.S. embassy abroad can

  • When did progress become evil? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Castar ( 67188 ) on Friday November 11, 2005 @06:44PM (#14012228)
    I think we're in a bad way here. Recently, especially in the US, everything and everyone has become more conservative - not in the political sense, but in the sense of "I want to maintain the status quo!" Previously, huge advances in technology were liberating, eventually wonderful (albeit disruptive) events for humanity.

    However, now whenever we make progress, we try and chain it down as much as possible to avoid anything changing. The Internet and digital content is a great example. Inventing the equivalent of a global Library of Alexandria, where everyone has access to all information, and transferring and copying information from place to place was easy and cheap, should have been a cause for celebration. We should have all rejoiced that now humanity was free to share all its ideas and art with everyone on the planet. But instead, we get legal and technological attempts to hamper that ability as much as possible, because it upsets the status quo. I imagine the same thing would happen if someone had come up with "replicators" that could feed and clothe the needy - they would instantly be controlled and limited so that they didn't disrupt the way things were, despite the obvious boon to humanity.

    Now it's the same thing with quantum computing - we've eliminated another scarcity (processing power) and instead of celebrating the freedom we go about trying hard to restrict it so that it's like we never made the breakthrough.

    There's a part in 1984 where it's revealed that the endless war is really just a means for burning through the surplus of materials and labor that a technologically advanced society has, so that people can be kept poor and overworked. While I doubt there's a conspiracy behind these current restrictions (besides the conspiracy of the status quo) I think the parallels are interesting.

    This, to me, is the number one compelling reason for progress - so we can get rid of all the people whose power depends on keeping us from progressing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close