Phys.org: IBM announces that its System Q One quantum computer has reached its 'highest quantum volume to date'
Phys.org: IBM announces that its System Q One quantum computer has reached its 'highest quantum volume to date'. https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ibm-quantum-highest-volume-date.html
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 18:19:18 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Phys.org: IBM announces that its System Q One quantum computer has reached its 'highest quantum volume to date'. https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ibm-quantum-highest-volume-date.html
I'm somewhat curious. Do you think that a working 'quatum' computer, which will obviously be owned and controlled by the ruling goverment-corporatocracy is going to help individual freedom?
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 2:03:45 PM PST, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 18:19:18 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Phys.org: IBM announces that its System Q One quantum computer has reached its 'highest quantum volume to date'. https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ibm-quantum-highest-volume-date.html
> I'm somewhat curious. Do you think that a working 'quatum' computer, which will obviously be owned and controlled by the ruling goverment-corporatocracy is going to help individual freedom? I have no idea. I consider it virtually axiomatic that there is no invention that can be used purely for helping freedom, or used purely for harming freedom. .But I think there tends to be a bias in the system that allows individuals to use inventions FOR freedom. Government is slow, stupid, and tends to lack imagination. Jim Bell
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:02:41 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I consider it virtually axiomatic that there is no invention that can be used purely for helping freedom, or used purely for harming freedom.
True, objects are morally neutral. They can be used for good or to harm people. Scientific knowledge is usually neutral as well.
.But I think there tends to be a bias in the system that allows individuals to use inventions FOR freedom.
Which system are you referring to? The system of nature? Western political systems? Or? At any rate I see little to no evidence of individuals using inventions for freedom in a significant way. What's more, there clearly is a bias in the industrial fascist system and that bias gives huge amounts of power to very few people. Just as an example integrated circuits manufacturing is an 'industry' that is highly centralized, it's a key component of the police state and is totally out of the control of 'ordinary' individuals. The more people depend on a complex technical system they don't understand, the more obviously fucked they are.
Government is slow, stupid, and tends to lack imagination.
What do you think is going to happen when you severely underestimate the capabilities of your enemy? In a nutshell, there's no evidence to support your belief. Au contraire, governments are, by definition, the fastest and most clever criminal organization in town. Government is the mafia that has outcompeted all other mafias. Furthermore, governments and industry or "private sector" are closely cooperating criminals. So, for instance, government isn't just the military but it includes all the military contractors and their 'engineering skills'. All the 'private' banking system is part of the government. Academia is part of the government. And so on and so forth.
Jim Bell
On 3/6/19, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:02:41 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I consider it virtually axiomatic that there is no invention that can be used purely for helping freedom, or used purely for harming freedom.
True, objects are morally neutral. They can be used for good or to harm people. Scientific knowledge is usually neutral as well.
.But I think there tends to be a bias in the system that allows individuals to use inventions FOR freedom.
Ties to the cost of the system. "Strong" opensource crypto has always been generally free and running on commodity computers most anyone could buy or access, wide open to public competition. Q hardware is different, it's hardware, non #OpenFab stuff, even assuming economies of scale, those same end users will probably remain priced and law'd out of access decades past when GovCorp 0wn them with it. Unless they do #OpenFabs to spool up their own production of open things. So all they have is opensource post quantum cryptosystem software, which is right now in as relatively unproven state as the Q hardware is, but with assuredly orders of magnitude less money being thrown at PQC development, excepting fishy organizations like secret NIST and other influence on competitions. The importance of #OpenFabs simply cannot be understated. Even if only to ensure access to secure opensource platforms upon which to run opensouce PQC software.
On 2019-03-07 06:59, Punk wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:02:41 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I consider it virtually axiomatic that there is no invention that can be used purely for helping freedom, or used purely for harming freedom.�
True, objects are morally neutral. They can be used for good or to harm people. Scientific knowledge is usually neutral as well.
.But I think there tends to be a bias in the system that allows individuals to use inventions FOR freedom.�
Which system are you referring to? The system of nature? Western political systems? Or?
Capitalist economy, as it has existed for thousands of years. Each technological advance gives the state more means of control, and the individual more means of resisting control. Individuals, however, are naturally more numerous and more technologically advanced that governments, and there are a lot of private businesses. Soviet Union used to have armed guards on photocopiers. When I went to Cuba, if a Cuban wanted to make a phone call, he had to go to a police station with a policeman visibly listening in on the line so that he would not even think of saying something he should not say. Obviously point to point and one to many communication is liberating, as we can tell by the efforts of terror states to control them. The primary threat to privacy today is giant corporations in the pocket of the government sweet talking private individuals into *voluntarily* handing over their data. For example viber by default backs up all your viber messages in the clear to google drive, where the greatest AI in the world does a pattern match for topics of interest. But, on the other hand, encryption and point to point communication is inherently resistant to the state. I just did a bunch of transactions by bitcoin that were either politically incorrect, circumvented government regulation, or both. Bitcoin plus encrypted messaging gives me liberty that no one used to have. Twitter censors, but gab does not. Viber theoretically encrypts, but then cheerfully backs up all your messages in the clear to the worst possible location, but Whatsapp really is encrypted. Giant corporations tend to be in the pocket of the state, but this creates room for smaller businesses and corporations to compete with them. Google is losing its grip after purging all its smartest engineers for mansplaining. All its new products are crap, its self driving car runs into people, and its AI is getting dumber.
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 16:36:34 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2019-03-07 06:59, Punk wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:02:41 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I consider it virtually axiomatic that there is no invention that can be used purely for helping freedom, or used purely for harming freedom.�
True, objects are morally neutral. They can be used for good or to harm people. Scientific knowledge is usually neutral as well.
.But I think there tends to be a bias in the system that allows individuals to use inventions FOR freedom.�
Which system are you referring to? The system of nature? Western political systems? Or?
Capitalist economy, as it has existed for thousands of years.
Oh right. By thousands of years, you mean, never.
Each technological advance gives the state more means of control, and the individual more means of resisting control.
No, as I mentioned, each technical advance implies more complexity so it favors groups of people who specialize in technical stuff and who control technical development.
Individuals, however, are naturally more numerous and more technologically advanced that governments,
"invididuals are more advanced than governments" doesn't even make sense. And newsflash : governments are just a bunch of criminal individuals.
and there are a lot of private businesses.
All of 'private' business are partners of the government. As I mentioned and you apparently ignored.
Soviet Union used to have armed guards on photocopiers.
sure sure.
When I went to Cuba, if a Cuban wanted to make a phone call, he had to go to a police station with a policeman visibly listening in on the line so that he would not even think of saying something he should not say.
of course, that must have been the case. Now, as we all learned in free govt school, that's communism. But what about capitalism? Under capitalism no policemen are needed for direct surveillance because govcorp has super high defintion video cameras, all fiber optic is tapped, all mass produced wireless phones are backdoored, people carry trackers with 30cms accuracy, the govt has imaging radar with 1m accuracy on satellites (thanks Jim B. for that piece of news =) ) - off the top of my head. The list is surely a lot longer.
Obviously point to point and one to many communication is liberating, as we can tell by the efforts of terror states to control them.
yeah, one to many communication is really liberating, just look at CNN, faux-news and all the rest of broadcasters.
The primary threat to privacy today is giant corporations in the pocket of the government sweet talking private individuals into *voluntarily* handing over their data.
well, voluntarily implies informed consent and I think there's little of that. But, at any rate, that's how retarded people are after being educated in free capitalistic govt schools.
For example viber by default backs up all your viber messages in the clear to google drive, where the greatest AI in the world does a pattern match for topics of interest.
no such thing as AI - it's just pattern matching.
But, on the other hand, encryption and point to point communication is inherently resistant to the state.
yeah, if your hardware and OS isn't backdoored.
I just did a bunch of transactions by bitcoin that were either politically incorrect, circumvented government regulation, or both. Bitcoin plus encrypted messaging gives me liberty that no one used to have.
yeah bitcoin and its fully open ledger is such an amazing tool...for tracking all transactions ever made.
Twitter censors, but gab does not. Viber theoretically encrypts, but then cheerfully backs up all your messages in the clear to the worst possible location, but Whatsapp really is encrypted.
sure sure - I blindly trust marx fuckerberg, the capitalistic owner of fukerbook, and I blindly trust marlingspike and the 3 millions he got from the pentagon to 'develop' signal.
Giant corporations tend to be in the pocket of the state,
no, giant corporations ARE the state.
but this creates room for smaller businesses and corporations to compete with them.
no, those smaller businesses are just as corrupt as big businesses and they get bought out as soon as they pretend to 'compete' anyway.
Google is losing its grip after purging all its smartest engineers for mansplaining.
in your dreams.
All its new products are crap, its self driving car runs into people, and its AI is getting dumber.
google was always crap. The only reason the google cancer is a big as it is because it's the flagship facade for the NSA...and americunt capitalism.
participants (4)
-
grarpamp -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
jim bell -
Punk