>Quantum computers are faster than regular computers

File: 1475794930139.png (103KB, 1250x1250px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1250x1250px

>We must move to IPv6

>>58914431
They are

>>58914488
It's misinterpreted by dumbasses.
Quantum computers don't make operations go faster, they're only faster for special types of calculations. Watching a movie or browing the internet on a quantum computer won't go faster than a regular computer, it might even go slower.

>>58914464
What is wrong with this one ?

>>58914569
>they're only faster for special types of calculations
OK, so the saying should be "Quantum computers are faster in some regards than regular computers"

>>58914600
Exactly.
But if Joe reads something like this
>http://www.sciencealert.com/google-s-quantum-computer-is-100-million-times-faster-than-your-laptop
He will assume that they're faster in every way.

>>58914597
>>58914464
not this again

please

>>58914644
>He will assume that they're faster in every way.
Some day they will be :-)

>>58914644
Kek, we could also say the Tianhe supercomputer from China is billion times faster than our laptops.

I fucking hate clickbait articles.

>>58914740
I want a shekellion not a billion.

>>58914740
>nigguh ever heard of Tarangine computuhz, dey make WORLDSTAR run gorillion timez fastur
>sheeeeeit cuzz where do we steal one??

>>58914431
>what is supertasks

>>58914464
whats wrong with ipv6?

>>58915002
IPv4 with NAT is far superior.

>>58915011
>Outdated tech is superior

This guy is a bastion of knowledge and truth

>>58915011
how is ipv4 with NAT superior? in ipv6 you have fc00::/7 for private addresses which there is more than enough in that range and setting up a firewall isnt that difficult. i want to know what is wrong with ipv6.

>>58914569
Not even "faster". There are certain quantum algorithms that can solve certain specific problems more efficiently than the fastest classical algorithm known.

Then again, there are some problems which are more efficiently solvable with a classical computer than with a quantum computer, and in many cases neither of these are practical, for example due to the number of entangled qubits needed or the number of bits of memory required for a time/space tradeoff.

>>58915011
>not even actually being an internet host is "far superior"

>>58914431
>Machine cannot understand that x + x = 2x
/Thread

>>58915011
IPv4 has fields that don't make sense in the current times and you can't get enough unique addresses for every device adding unnecessary logic to the whole system.

Shut the fuck up.

File: crying karen3423.jpg (35KB, 598x598px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 598x598px

>>58914431
>tfw quantum computers will make basically all forms of encryption obsolete and will therefore never be widely available to the public

>>58915169
It looks like shit and is difficult to remember.

>>58914431
B-but dude!
I wanted to play Crisis 5 at 16k with 144 FPS

>>58914597

Turbo brainlet.

>>58916516
hex looks like shit? and i really dont believe its that difficult for you to remember several ipv6 addresses when you're going to be mostly using dns anyway. and if you need an easy name to remember for important computers you're just going to name it in your hosts file anyway.

>>58916495
They've already started making quantum antivirus and encryption methods so i think at some point they will be available to the public

>>58915200
shh anon we all know that f(x) -> ??? is the wave of the future

>>58914464
Do you even understand technology you fucking indiot?

quantum computers are faster though
its motherfucking trinary+ you dipshits.
If you believe transistor computing is fast, then by definition you believe quantum computing is twice or several times faster.
Sure the overhead and the electron-designating equipment would make it impractical but this isn't about practicality

>>58918601
You have no idea what you're talking about, read >>58914569

>>58918799
No you just have no actual knowledge of quantum states used as switches or data and/or are falling for marketing
Using quantum dynamics to read several states of an electron will become trinary and more, that's literally the only thing observable quantum mechanics are useful for

>>58914464
If I do recall correctly, we are at this point officially out of available IPv4 address space and the only available ones are the ones people are selling to each other.

With the massive push for IoT (God knows why), IPv6 is about to implemented very heavily. I say within the next 10 years.

>>58918799
Okay please elaborate
What determines if a program is "quantum-optimized" or not?
What programs run slower?
What evidence you you have to believe any of this?

>>58918860
I study electrical engeneering and telecommunications. I wrote a 4000 word essay about the difference between quantum computers and regular ones.
If you're really that stubborn, I can send it to you.

>>58918951
But you don't even know how quantum states are determined and predicted consistently? You're just going "the commercial for this computer tech" vs "the commercial for this computer tech"
CS majors I swear

>>58914431
FUCK NIGGERS

>>58918976
>>58918951
Quantum computing has very little to do with traditional computing, the push is to get quantum state observation, which we already do, into an processing environment and make it so it's accurate enough for usage
Really there's no much to link quantum observation and computers, other than the fact that if we do it'll boost/multiply the most basic fundamental level of data processing

>>58919056
[email protected]

Not the anon above, but interested.

>>58918900
>out of available IPv4 address space
Then why does my ISP keep assigning me a new one every so often?
I've had the same IP for years and they only recently started doing that.

>>58919114
Because you're utilizing a dynamic IP rotation, but the IP itself belongs to ISP, not you. You just pay for the service. This is different from purchasing actual blocks of IP addresses for your own use in a network design.

>>58918976
I passed quantum nanosystems with ease, and I know exactly what spins are.
Like I said, just give me your email address and I'll send you my essay, which specifically mentions superpositions, the relation between spins and bits and why quantum computers are no replacement for classical computers.

>>58915192
Whats faster on a regular computer?

>>58914488
4 KHZ CLOCK SPEED.
FOUR KILOHERTZ CLOCK SPEED.
Not gigahertz, not even megahertz, but KILOHERTZ.

Eniac had a similar clock speed.

>>58920068
Currently, EVERYTHING.

>>58914431
>What is Grover's algorithm?

>>58920719
But with quaternary bits?

>>58916724
I prefer farcry 7

File: 386super.jpg (106KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 500x366px

How time flies...

>>58921375
4 FUCKING KEEELLLLOOOOHHHHHUUURRTTZZ ANON

>>58916495
They cant do hash functions tho,so RSA is easy but AES would take longer time

>>58916495
No, there will be always a way to decrypt shit, we will just have more secure computers, but the NSA and related will always have a way to decrypt your loli porn before even releasing this to the public.

>>58918900
If we took away some blocks from Africa, and low populated areas that barely use their IPv4 blocks it wouldnt be AS drastic. But yes the change will need to come soon.

>>58914569
>They're not faster
>They're only faster for ....

Whatever...

File: 1475039916916.jpg (212KB, 853x1137px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 853x1137px

>>58926698
>whatever...

>>58926698
Dumb cunrs like you are the reason why people think they're le super fast computers that make videos play in 9000k and run vidya in 2 million fps

>>58926725
>Dumb cunrs like you are the reason why people think they're le super fast computers
And that's a big huge fucking problem for you... right?

File: bubbly.jpg (73KB, 718x718px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 718x718px

>>58914431
>quantum computers cant run crysis

>>58927018
https://vimeo.com/180284417

>>58914431
the concept will allow them to become far faster than the 14nm ceiling that we've hit with normal computers.

>>58918951
Im interested, plz link

>>58920068
For one thing, birthday attacks seeking hash collisions of cryptographic hashes.

There's an 2^(n/3) workfactor meet-in-the-middle algo which is proven optimal on a sufficiently large quantum computer (however "sufficiently large" in this case is more qubits than would even fit in the solar system): but the traditional 2^(n/2) workfactor birthday attack has a time-memory tradeoff that would in theory beat a quantum computer.

Neither attack would ever be practical on an ideal cryptographic hash of 256 bits.

That isn't to say there aren't some things it would be good at. Most symmetric crypto would be fine. Grover's algorithm in theory requires 256-bit keys to hit a 128-bit workfactor on a quantum computer, but quantum period finding might cause serious problems for modes like GCM and OCB.

Practical runs of Shor's algorithm would eat all conventional factoring-based (RSA) and discrete-log (Diffie-Hellman over both finite fields and all elliptic curves)-based asymmetric crypto for breakfast. But there are still numerous asymmetric primitives that may work - lattice-based (like NTRU), code-based (like NewHope), Lamport/Merkle hash signatures (including stochastic ones like SPHINCS), even supersingular-isogeny/elliptic-curve-field-based exchanges (SIDH, etc). Many of these have disadvantages over the primitives they hope to replace - larger, slower, less secure on a classical computer, less tested, etc. Research in "post-quantum" asymmetric crypto is actively ongoing.

Should I wait for the quantum computers instead of ryzen :DDDDD ?????

can quantum computers calculate 2 + 2 yet?

>>58914431
1 qbit can store 1 bit of information, but 2 qbits can store 4 bits. and each qbit added doubles it everytime. By 10 qbits you can alreadly store 1024 bits of information then just imagine when we get to 64.