Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 21:31:50 -0700
>Thus spake Ereskanti:
>>
>> In a message dated 5/26/98 4:58:36 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>> mike@*******.com writes:
>>
>> > However, Intel shipping speeds like this to mass market consumers for
>> > somewhat reasonable prices, is important. The more power on distributed
>> > systems, whatever the processor, will only bring us nearer to the
>> > Matrix-like netowrks of the future. I'm already saving up for a datajack
>> > and an encephalon. :-)
>> >
>> funny, I always thought one of the things in our way was connection speeds,
>> not processor speeds at this point....
>
<Discourse on routing/switching technologies snipped>

There is a larger issue surrounding superfast microprocessors - the bus
speed on the board. The reason Exponential, who was touting a 500-700mghz
PPC chip, went bottom up was because designing a chip with backside cache
offered the same performace increase on slower chips for a much lower cost.
And what's more, the system-bus speeds on both PowerMac and Intel boards
are increasing. However, there are some very difficult problems involved
with bus speeds that high... I was talking with the Gossamer design team
this summer (The group that designed the board on the PowerMac G3's. I
worked with that team and went to lunch with them when we took the System
Software for that project Golden Master). One of them told me that
when the bus speeds get up to 100mghz or so, current technologies only
allow for the bus to be 1-2 centimeters long. That's not much room to
hook up a memory management unit, etc... (Oh, and to clarify, I wasn't
/on/ the Gossamer team. I was in a cross-functional support role.)

Anyway, the point is that the real gating item on obtaining performance
from mega-fast CPUs is how fast you can feed the processor instructions.
Even with the backside cache, these processors still end up
spending cycles either flushing their pipelines or waiting for
instructions to arrive.

There's a whole new angle developing in computing technology though -
Quantum Computers. They've actually successfully solved a problem
using a device exploiting quantum theory stuff. It's mostly over
my head, but the example used involved 4 "operations" to be performed
to make a decision. ie: a comparison. The quantum computer
solved all four possiblities at once... This is technology that
probably won't see the light of day though until....2050? :)

-Rob
Message no. 2
From: Phil Levis <pal@**.BROWN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 03:51:28 -0400
On Tue, 26 May 1998, Robert Nesius wrote:

> Software for that project Golden Master). One of them told me that
> when the bus speeds get up to 100mghz or so, current technologies only
> allow for the bus to be 1-2 centimeters long. That's not much room to

This changes with optical technology. Light travels much faster than
electricity.

> There's a whole new angle developing in computing technology though -
> Quantum Computers. They've actually successfully solved a problem
> using a device exploiting quantum theory stuff. It's mostly over
> my head, but the example used involved 4 "operations" to be performed
> to make a decision. ie: a comparison. The quantum computer
> solved all four possiblities at once... This is technology that
> probably won't see the light of day though until....2050? :)

I sat in on a few lectures on this topic. My personal opinion is that they
will fill a similar role to that of biological/genetic computation;
problem formulation is tough, and takes a long time, but once it's set up,
one can compute at amazing speeds. Not really well suited for normal
computer use, really.

The one area that quantum computers excel is cryptography. Several
leading researchers believe that once some of the techniques are
honed, public key cryptography will no longer be very secure; simple
formulations can solve for all the possible key combinations quite
effortlessly. One of the lecturers commented that once this development
was discovered, an extremely large (say, in the tens of millions) grant
came from a consortium of three letter agencies.

Phil
Message no. 3
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:50:36 +0100
And verily, did Phil Levis hastily scribble thusly...
|
|On Tue, 26 May 1998, Robert Nesius wrote:
|
|> Software for that project Golden Master). One of them told me that
|> when the bus speeds get up to 100mghz or so, current technologies only
|> allow for the bus to be 1-2 centimeters long. That's not much room to
|
|This changes with optical technology. Light travels much faster than
|electricity.

When you're talking about high frequencies like that, the only difference
between light and the signals travelling down wires is the medium itself.

(The speed of light is *not* a constant. It changes depending on the medium
it's travelling through. i.e.

Free-space > 30 X 10^8 M/S
Wire (EM waves = EM radiation = Light [of very low frequencies]) Slower.
Fibreoptic cable. Slower. Faster than Wire, but still slower....

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 4
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:58:10 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 03:51 AM 5/27/98 -0400, Phil wrote:
>This changes with optical technology. Light travels much faster than
>electricity.

HUH? I was under the impression that electricity moved at near the
speed of light too. I'll grant that it's a tad slower than the 'speed
of light in a vacuum' but light traveling through fiber optics is also
slower than 'speed of light in a vacuum'. (IIRC, electomagnetics
traveling through any medium are impeded ever so slightly, which is
why they have to quote the speed 'in a vacuum')

I know it takes electricity one nanosecond to travel 11.something
inches (I think it's .82) through a copper wire. Anyone got good stats
on how long a light year is and is good at converting units of
measure?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNWwp982C0fERRVM5AQE/xQQAoN2J/YAO+aPVZpKi7t1ld2dO08SVbbwF
XSWVlhrTNekQ5oyjjII9z7dVlmMrp3I5jMUXIMA0haC1rIQytMCfcPYwKiLOy0zb
Tk6zNzVvxkp27hthcxdzYg3iUMsdOSIGU+ah0oP2vhN1UB6JwkckF8NuxQHyF06f
kR+sez8e+xA=
=jyDP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 5
From: Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:19:09 -0400
On 27 May 98, at 10:58, Paul Gettle wrote:

> >This changes with optical technology. Light travels much faster than
> >electricity.
>
> HUH? I was under the impression that electricity moved at near the
> speed of light too. I'll grant that it's a tad slower than the 'speed of
> light in a vacuum' but light traveling through fiber optics is also slower
> than 'speed of light in a vacuum'. (IIRC, electomagnetics traveling
> through any medium are impeded ever so slightly, which is why they have to
> quote the speed 'in a vacuum')

Yes, you are right. The advantages to light over
electricity are integrity, and interference, not speed.
Light is not susceptible to EMF or RFI interference, so
is a more robust transfer medium. Plus, it maintains
signal integrity over a much greater distance.

--

=================================================================
- Tim Kerby - drekhead@***.net - ICQ-UIN 2883757 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is the only obstacle to happiness." - Unknown
Message no. 6
From: Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:05:29 -0600
Thus spake Tim Kerby:
>
> On 27 May 98, at 10:58, Paul Gettle wrote:
>
> > >This changes with optical technology. Light travels much faster than
> > >electricity.
> >
> > HUH? I was under the impression that electricity moved at near the
> > speed of light too. I'll grant that it's a tad slower than the 'speed of
> > light in a vacuum' but light traveling through fiber optics is also slower
> > than 'speed of light in a vacuum'. (IIRC, electomagnetics traveling
> > through any medium are impeded ever so slightly, which is why they have to
> > quote the speed 'in a vacuum')
>
> Yes, you are right. The advantages to light over
> electricity are integrity, and interference, not speed.
> Light is not susceptible to EMF or RFI interference, so
> is a more robust transfer medium. Plus, it maintains
> signal integrity over a much greater distance.

I wouldn't say that light isn't susceptible to outside interference with
much confidence right now. It hasn't been used as densely as electrical
transmission lines to find out what kind of gremlins show up in these
kinds of situations. When you start pumping that much light through
gates in dense configurations, who knows what new quantum principle
might be uncovered.

However, I do agree with you as to the higher scalability of light over
electricity. I think that the amount of data, when described in the media
as states (levels of intensity, similar to voltage), is potentially much
higher when using photons rather than electrons.

--
| Even Einstein objected to the idea of
Mike Loseke | wave-function collapse, calling it
mike@*******.com | "spooky action-at-a-distance."
Message no. 7
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:39:42 -0400
At 09:31 PM 5/26/98 -0700, you wrote:

>There's a whole new angle developing in computing technology though -
>Quantum Computers. They've actually successfully solved a problem
>using a device exploiting quantum theory stuff. It's mostly over
>my head, but the example used involved 4 "operations" to be performed
>to make a decision. ie: a comparison. The quantum computer
>solved all four possiblities at once... This is technology that
>probably won't see the light of day though until....2050? :)


Okay. Can someone, in relatively brief terms, explain what this is? Don't
get too technical, don't go too long. But this is something that has
piqued my interest, so I'd love it if someone could offer an explanation
suited for the layman who has a bit of knowledge about quantum mechanics.

Thanks.

Erik J.


"Forgive me FASA for I have sinned. It has been 6 days since I last played
Shadowrun and 15 days since I last bought a SRTCG booster pack."
Message no. 8
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 14:59:12 -0400
Erik Jameson wrote:
>>There's a whole new angle developing in computing technology though -
>>Quantum Computers. They've actually successfully solved a problem
>>using a device exploiting quantum theory stuff. It's mostly over
>>my head, but the example used involved 4 "operations" to be performed
>>to make a decision. ie: a comparison. The quantum computer
>>solved all four possiblities at once... This is technology that
>>probably won't see the light of day though until....2050? :)
>
>Okay. Can someone, in relatively brief terms, explain what this is? Don't
>get too technical, don't go too long. But this is something that has
>piqued my interest, so I'd love it if someone could offer an explanation
>suited for the layman who has a bit of knowledge about quantum mechanics.

Really basic version:
By using radio signals to twiddle atoms and reading off results using
NMR (getting around uncertainty by doing the same thing to several
"units" and reading only one of them), some researchers managed to
create a 2-bit xor gate out of chloroform. They think that the max
is about 10-11 bits, and they don't seem to have much real knowledge
of actual computers (quoting O(n) for a simple database search, etc).

More complex version:
Basically, each of the atoms used has a spin (they added a neutron
to the C in the chloroform to get it spinning). By exploiting the
difference in spin, they can "set" the hydrogen's initial condition,
flip the whole thing 90 degrees, wait a bit, flip it back. Then they
read off the orientation of the carbon. If the H is spinning one way,
the C returns to its original position. If the H is spinning the other,
the C flips over.

Actual version:
If you're interested in more depth, check out the June Scientific
American, page 66-71.

James Ojaste
Message no. 9
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 09:54:11 +1000
Erik Jameson writes:
> Okay. Can someone, in relatively brief terms, explain what this
> is? Don't
> get too technical, don't go too long. But this is something that has
> piqued my interest, so I'd love it if someone could offer an explanation
> suited for the layman who has a bit of knowledge about quantum mechanics.

Quantum computing, and quantum programming, is an experimental technique
that offers a lot of potential for increasing computer power, at the cost of
making it hideously more complex (I know that I would want much better tools
for quantum programming than are available now... even trying to understand
what's going on makes my brain hurt).

Basically, it uses probabilistic outcomes, and this causes all sorts of
funky effects. Instead of a simple XOR gate which follows one of two
outcomes, it follows _both_ outcomes simultaneously. As a result, a quantum
program is in all possible states of its execution at any given time (in
theory. In practice, it's a little harder).

The fundamental principle uses something which I _think_ is called a qubit.
A qubit is a quantum bit. A normal bit has two states: on or off, usually
represented by 1 or 0. A qubit can be represented as a sphere (well, an
ellipsoid in practice), with the two poles representing 1 or 0, and the
surface of the sphere representing the probabilistic range of the qubit.
This is then used as the basis of your computations, the way the bit is used
in normal computations.

Theoretical studies have showed quantum programming to be incredibly
powerful. As an example, it converts a decryption algorithm for cracking
_all standard encryption algorithms_ from an exponential problem to an Order
N problem (instead of taking n^n seconds, it takes n seconds). (Fortunately,
the same boffins who came up with this thing also designed quantum
encryption algorithms).

Now, imagine that the Crash of '29 was caused by an experimental quantum
program, and that was what enabled it to blow through all existing computer
security as if it wasn't there...

That's about the limit of my knowledge. Like I said, it makes my brain hurt.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 10
From: Craig J Wilhelm Jr <craigjwjr@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 20:30:55 -0400
Paul Gettle wrote:
> I know it takes electricity one nanosecond to travel 11.something
> inches (I think it's .82) through a copper wire. Anyone got good stats
> on how long a light year is and is good at converting units of
> measure?

1 light year is 5,878,499,814,110.65447 Miles or
9,460,528,404,845.18187 Kilometers.

--
Craig "Knee Deep in the Blood of Swine" Wilhelm
The heavy wisdom that sorrow teaches is lightened by the pint,
and lost by the gallon
UIN: 1864690
-------------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
v3.12
GAT/$ d- s+:+ a- C+++ U--- P+ L- E-- W++ N++
o K- w+ O> !M-- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t--- 5+++
X-- R++ tv b++ DI-- D+(Q2++) G++ e++ h* r y++**
--------------END GEEK CODE BLOCK--------------
Message no. 11
From: Paul Gettle <pgettle@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 21:36:23 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 08:30 PM 5/27/98 -0400, Craig wrote:
>Paul Gettle wrote:
>> I know it takes electricity one nanosecond to travel 11.something
>> inches (I think it's .82) through a copper wire. Anyone got good
stats
>> on how long a light year is and is good at converting units of
>> measure?
>
> 1 light year is 5,878,499,814,110.65447 Miles or
>9,460,528,404,845.18187 Kilometers.

Using the value for kilometers, plugged into a handy spreadsheet, one
light-nanosecond is equal to 11.8026005850334 inches (so my estimate
from this morning, 11.82, wasn't too far off base. Not bad for that
being before my first cup of caffiene in the morning)

Oh, and in metric, thats 29.9786054859849 cm.

Either way, the speed of electricity through copper (which isn't the
best conductor, but it's still pretty good) is very close to
lightspeed.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNWy/Kc2C0fERRVM5AQGiMAQAjHtur8hBp5AkJOnwQqgvYayT2oaHSihK
BCVgjrDSdXfrKfEA8H6R5SCrHiST0MYv1gPBcBIwxIR2L5M4RH4rA5XjTnAS5gKF
EMVrgEoUp9APQMlMPKHAZ00SfHiAgG4wcBEmQttHQnF6lgqGY921NUtxU4W1phyB
JtkOrnLKNKM=
Ühx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle (pgettle@********.net)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:11455339 (RSA 1024, created 97/08/08)
625A FFF0 76DC A077 D21C 556B BB58 00AA
Message no. 12
From: Stephen Delear <steved@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 02:28:18 -0500
At 11:05 AM 98-05-27 -0600, you wrote:
>Thus spake Tim Kerby:
>>
>> On 27 May 98, at 10:58, Paul Gettle wrote:
>>
>> > >This changes with optical technology. Light travels much faster than
>> > >electricity.
>> >
>> > HUH? I was under the impression that electricity moved at near the
>> > speed of light too. I'll grant that it's a tad slower than the 'speed of
>> > light in a vacuum' but light traveling through fiber optics is also
slower
>> > than 'speed of light in a vacuum'. (IIRC, electomagnetics traveling
>> > through any medium are impeded ever so slightly, which is why they
have to
>> > quote the speed 'in a vacuum')
>>
>> Yes, you are right. The advantages to light over
>> electricity are integrity, and interference, not speed.
>> Light is not susceptible to EMF or RFI interference, so
>> is a more robust transfer medium. Plus, it maintains
>> signal integrity over a much greater distance.
>
> I wouldn't say that light isn't susceptible to outside interference with
>much confidence right now. It hasn't been used as densely as electrical
>transmission lines to find out what kind of gremlins show up in these
>kinds of situations. When you start pumping that much light through
>gates in dense configurations, who knows what new quantum principle
>might be uncovered.

God I can just see it know you're sitting at home writting E-Mail, windows
crashes and your computer takes off towards antares at superluminal velocity.

SteveD
>
> However, I do agree with you as to the higher scalability of light over
>electricity. I think that the amount of data, when described in the media
>as states (levels of intensity, similar to voltage), is potentially much
>higher when using photons rather than electrons.
>
>--
> | Even Einstein objected to the idea of
> Mike Loseke | wave-function collapse, calling it
> mike@*******.com | "spooky action-at-a-distance."
>
Stephen Delear
Freelance Photographer
Austin TX
Phone 512-388-0166
Message no. 13
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:09:53 -0600
Robert Watkins wrote:
/
/ Now, imagine that the Crash of '29 was caused by an experimental quantum
/ program, and that was what enabled it to blow through all existing computer
/ security as if it wasn't there...

So.. the matrix croaked because of a qibit virus?

;-D

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!