How far away from the practical .....

[peter]

Don't know if this is significant to the above discussion, but I'll toss it in anyway: I remember Paul Davis [Davies?] in one of his books on Quantum Physics asking "How do we know that all of this seemingly impossible stuff is actually the case - because every time we turn on the TV, or switch on the radio , or use any device with a transistor[?] in it we verify it to be so." {or words to that effect}.

Would this not be the ultimate test of whether quantum computing was indeed working or not - that if it wasn't none of the things that would follow from its working would follow and it's usefulness as a tool would nosedive [like the hapless accountant above's result/formula bollocks up].

[Vraith]

Yea, peter, that's a reasonable thing. And in this particular case why it matters a ton that checking is faster, simpler, and achievable by things we already KNOW work, than solving.

One thing that I've noticed---or THINK I've noticed, maybe I'm just not seeing a lot of stuff---
The use of quantum machines is mostly talked about in what it will do for advanced math/physics/whatever...abstract stuff.
The REAL advantage, I think, is---if it works as hoped---in engineering/application. It cuts out decades of paid man-hours and billions [tens, hundreds, or even more] of resource/material costs/waste between the idea and the product.
For instance, the F-35 fighter. More than a decade behind schedule, half a trillion or so over budget, and though it is kinda-sorta working, it's STILL a really shitty and overpriced plane.
Real quantum machines could have produced it WAY faster---and shown we shouldn't long before it became too expensive to quit now. [[because it wasn't just that the plane was hard to make work---it is that the kind of plane it is meant to be is a totally fucking stupid idea.]]
Same for almost all the things that are:
A) really hard to do...
B) total scams because only "special" people can do it so they screw everyone [big Pharma, pretty much every person in the Financial sector]
C) Great concepts, till you're up to your eyeballs and realize this shit is a clusterfuck. It might WORK---but it's a fucktard way to do it.
D) 2 or all 3 of the above.

[peter]

Here's a scenario where quantum computing might be able to play a significant role.

If you consider the flow of traffic like the flow of red blood cells through the human vascular system - you've all seen the pictures - the individual cars [or RBC's] flow hither and thither through the system collecting and slowing down into jams in totally unpredictable fashion and then moving on when one or two units are sufficiently 'jostled' [or whatever] in order to free the stoppage back into movement. Traffic density and speed at any given point will result in cars/cells joining the queue at the rear faster than they leave at the front - and the jam worsens, or the hold up in the front is lifted and the queue dissipates from the front. I hears a guy saying on TV that a single driver applying his brakes to slow down on a busy motorway can result in a reverse knock on effect that causes a jam to form and build up way back down the traffic column.
It seems to me that the only thing that could prevent this from occurring would be if every car in the system was in constant contact with every other and was aware of the speeds, destinations and traffic volumes at all points - and could adjust routes accordingly to avoid any of the above outlined problems. [Incidentally - I guess we have to be talking driverless cars here.] Now surely the huge quantity of computing power needed to pull of such a mammoth task on an instant by instant basis is beyond conventional computing powers and speeds - but easily conceivable if quantum computing were to step up to the plate effectively?

[Nb. I'm guessing it might be possible for conventional computers to pull off the task heuristically - but not with 100 percent efficiency.]

[Vraith]

Here's a scenario where quantum computing might be able to play a significant role.

[Nb. I'm guessing it might be possible for conventional computers to pull off the task heuristically - but not with 100 percent efficiency.]

I don't know if a quantum machine would be necessary or not for this, for it to be perfectly [or nearly perfectly] effective/efficient.

But quite a few places have begun experimenting with it---using sensors in the roads, video, and even radar, IIRC. There are a number of shortcomings/gaps in info, coverage, and as far as I know even the best of them are adaptive/reactive, but not predictive. [I could be way behind the times on that, not an issue I've been tracking]
I THINK that London or some part of London is on the bleeding edge in this.

[Fist and Faith]

You can't stop people from doing stupid things behind the wheel. Can't stop the 85 year old from driving waaaaay too slow, and can't stop the impatient jerk from passing him unsafely.

[samrw3]

Yeah as far as the whole driverless cars my gut is that especially in short term the best way to make it work is similar to high occupancy lanes. Make lanes only driverless cars can drive on or whole sections of roadways driverless. That would eliminate some of the factors that make it more difficult.

For example, if certain state/interstate roadways were designated driverless then by rule there could be no pedestrians or bicycles, small children, rural areas with slow or less predictable obstacles (balls, pets, etc)

From what I have read recently that is one of the biggest obstacles - are the less predictable objects and smaller objects.

So to make it work would have to way to convert a car from regular car mode to driverless car mode. OR drive your regular car to a designated parking area near driverless area and hop into the driverless car that would commute you to designated spots where you could then get cabs/Uber/Lyft/buses/etc to final destination.

[Avatar]

So to make it work would have to way to convert a car from regular car mode to driverless car mode. OR drive your regular car to a designated parking area near driverless area and hop into the driverless car that would commute you to designated spots where you could then get cabs/Uber/Lyft/buses/etc to final destination.

Thing is, if I have to drive somewhere to get a driverless car that will take me somewhere that I can get driven to my destination from, then reverse the process to get back to my car, I'm probably just going to drive the whole way myself.

--A

[samrw3]

I admit that I had not fully fleshed out my idea. I was thinking more along the lines of going to a station and going to driverless vehicle that other people get into the same vehicle (possibly as large as a shuttle). The advantages are less stress, more comfort than most other transit systems and if the city has designated certain lanes driverless more accessibility to far/congested parts of the city (because now the "regular" roadway has narrowed to make room for the driverless lanes - or just plain less "regular" roadways)

This type of system is basically in place in Chicago where thousands drive to a train station get on train to take a final bus/cab/etc to their final destination. I know I would be more likely to jump in driverless shared vehicle then these larger scale transit systems.

[Avatar]

Probably workable in places where effective mass transport exists. (It doesn't where I live. )

--A

[Vraith]

Probably workable in places where effective mass transport exists. (It doesn't where I live. )

--A

It's not so much that places have effective mass transport, though some places are better than others, relatively speaking---it's just that individual transport is just freaking awful.
Creating effective mass transport...even effective individual transport... is not really [and hasn't been for quite a long time] a technology problem. It's a people are jerks problem.

[Avatar]

Elaborate?

--A

[samrw3]

I will skip over the transportation issue for now. I have been mulling over another possibility - is the health field. I could theoretically imagine having whatever diagnostic tools doctors need/use to feed into a super computer. Then with all the variables of your genetic past, your medical history, your reactions to medicine, the results of diagnostics,etc to create a personalized medical treatment. Possibly even to the point where the computer synthesis a combination of drugs and treatment methods for the ideal treatment suited to each individual. I am not sure if would be scalable (meaning the cost of performing on one scale versus developing something on a multi-scale) would be doable but it is intriguing to think as a possible huge advance in medicine.

[Vraith]

Elaborate?

--A

Los Angeles...2 billion to add a freeway lane to reduce traffic/congestion. Even though it is known that those projects do NOT reduce traffic. They literally spend money for NO REASON.
A fairly recent project increased traffic for a few years---in exchange for 6 months of lower congestion, followed by a permanent increase.
On top of that wasted cash, they spend a billion or three on parking.
Those parking spaces take up about 1000 football stadiums worth of space.
My roommate and I had the same length commute. On EVERY day, I could beat him on the bus, or on my bike [about 1/2 the time as his].
On BAD days, I could JOG and beat him.
People won't take mass transit, won't walk, won't bike, won't live near where they work, won't CARPOOL, won't work alternate hours, won't pay the tax rates for effective infrastructure.
But will sit in their cars for 2 hours a day, burning fossil fuels and swearing about the fucking traffic, fucking drivers [not themselves] fucking government.
People are jerks.

[Avatar]

5 million people take the Tube every day in London, and that's just the Tube. So people do use it if the opportunity is there.

Here, we don't have something like that, and can't necessarily live near where we work.

Don't talk to me about highway "improvements."

Government here spent billions on a "freeway upgrade" (To little effect as you mention), and millions more on implementing an electronic tolling system.

4 years later, citizen participation in the tolling is sitting at 29% and they're finally realising that it will probably cost more to try and recover that money from people by legal avenues than they would get from the outstanding monies.

Now they're apparently looking for other ways to recoup those costs. What a waste.

--A

[Cord Hurn]

Elaborate?

--A

Los Angeles...2 billion to add a freeway lane to reduce traffic/congestion. Even though it is known that those projects do NOT reduce traffic. They literally spend money for NO REASON.
A fairly recent project increased traffic for a few years---in exchange for 6 months of lower congestion, followed by a permanent increase.
On top of that wasted cash, they spend a billion or three on parking.
Those parking spaces take up about 1000 football stadiums worth of space.
My roommate and I had the same length commute. On EVERY day, I could beat him on the bus, or on my bike [about 1/2 the time as his].
On BAD days, I could JOG and beat him.
People won't take mass transit, won't walk, won't bike, won't live near where they work, won't CARPOOL, won't work alternate hours, won't pay the tax rates for effective infrastructure.
But will sit in their cars for 2 hours a day, burning fossil fuels and swearing about the fucking traffic, fucking drivers [not themselves] fucking government.
People are jerks.

I'd say you elaborated quite well. Thank you.

[Vraith]

I'd say you elaborated quite well. Thank you.

Thanks. The thing is, though, that that is just ONE of the issues.
There are also NIMBY problems of various kinds.
Population flows/shifts [the voluntary, of course, but also the involuntary].
Business/Industry/Commercial movements.
Hub/transport needs corporate vs personal.
All of those have some relationship/overlap, but also some combat zones and some independent/particular needs/functions.
Some of those are, in part, "natural" difficulties [moving cargo has inherent differences from moving people].
But in every case, there are also serious conflict that HAVE solutions that can't be used---because people are jerks.
[[and that's still not everything]].

[Skyweir]

Elaborate?

--A

Los Angeles...2 billion to add a freeway lane to reduce traffic/congestion. Even though it is known that those projects do NOT reduce traffic. They literally spend money for NO REASON.
A fairly recent project increased traffic for a few years---in exchange for 6 months of lower congestion, followed by a permanent increase.
On top of that wasted cash, they spend a billion or three on parking.
Those parking spaces take up about 1000 football stadiums worth of space.
My roommate and I had the same length commute. On EVERY day, I could beat him on the bus, or on my bike [about 1/2 the time as his].
On BAD days, I could JOG and beat him.
People won't take mass transit, won't walk, won't bike, won't live near where they work, won't CARPOOL, won't work alternate hours, won't pay the tax rates for effective infrastructure.
But will sit in their cars for 2 hours a day, burning fossil fuels and swearing about the fucking traffic, fucking drivers [not themselves] fucking government.
People are jerks.

You are both absolutely right. But how do we stop the waste. And as a bystander only how much of peoples unwillingness to take public transport and carpool etc is cultural I wonder. Most nations have public transport systems but public usage varies from country to country, for no doubt a myriad of reasons.

Do we change our behaviour at the community level. I know living situations and social services, like transport etc do differ from country to country. I really like Sweden. Yes theyve had to test and asjust along the way but they prioritise social services but they have high taxes. Thats the trade off. Im ok with that, but thats not a broadly palatable notion.

Its priorities though isnt.. what a community of humans deem important. For some communities it is the environment, the provision of social services, education, technology .. but none of these things exclude attention another.

[Avatar]

What your priority is also depends on your circumstances. When unemployment is 30% (and youth unemployment (below 25) is 67%), the environment is not going to be a priority for you.

--A

[Skyweir]

Precisely Av ..

Thats dead right on an individual level. Though I know when I was at University public transport was definitely more affordable means of transport that owning, insuring, registering and running a vehicle.

But thats by the by .. how do we actually prevent the waste youve both referred to. Influence government, demanding accountability.. probably quite difficult in a country like SA.. but there are budget processes and senate estimates that are used to identify resource usage. Its perhaps getting involved through submissions on various Public projects perhaps ...

But we can each do what we can. Walk where we can .. youre the overall beneficiary after all. Question our elected representatives. Well we can here, so sometimes make the mistake of thinking everywhere is the same.

You know .. all great places to live, where you legitimately can get involved in processes.

[Vraith]

What your priority is also depends on your circumstances. When unemployment is 30% (and youth unemployment (below 25) is 67%), the environment is not going to be a priority for you.

--A

Only if you believe something dumb like environmental rules are causing your unemployment.
And disbelieve something true, like your nasty fucking job/habits will kill your kids.
I said people are jerks. You're saying something worse. They're STUPID jerks.