Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 22:53:53 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2003 at 03:56:53, Mark Schreiber wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 20:22:04, Matt Taylor wrote: > >>On January 10, 2003 at 17:21:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 09, 2003 at 07:35:41, Mark Schreiber wrote: >>> >>>>On January 08, 2003 at 20:23:18, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 08, 2003 at 19:56:58, Michael Vox wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Strangley, by the end of the day, both of the stocks had declined. Meaning that >>>>>>potential investors do not foresee earning potential in the deal :( >>>>> >>>>>People can be dumb, can't they? >>>>> >>>>>I think it will be something to watch. I'm watching:o) >>>>> >>>>>Terry >>>> >>>>That’s because people have learned from history. IBM partners with other >>>>companies because they can not develop high technology on its own. IBM supplies >>>>the money; the other company does the work. They have tried this before. It >>>>always fails miserably. They tried it with Siemens to make phone systems. With >>>>Apple and HP to get a GUI OS. Motorola for CPU’s. Toshiba for memory chips. >>>>Don’t expect any high technology products to come from this. >>>>Mark >>> >>> >>>IBM can't "develop high technology on its own"??? >>> >>>:) >>> >>>History sure doesn't support that... >> >>Nor current events. It has been a little while since I looked into it, but last >>I checked IBM held the world's largest (and most coherent) quantum computer. >> >>-Matt > >IBM can’t develop high technology products that are more innovative than their >competitors. The joint ventures are an attempt at buying innovation. I just >remembered 1 more failure. IBM’s and AT&T develop the Multics operating system. >The quantum computer isn’t a joint venture. It won’t be practical for many >decades. It is strictly for public relations similar to deep blue. >Mark Read: largest and most coherent quantum computer. This would tend to imply that theirs is BETTER than anyone else's. Certainly they have creatively addressed the issue of coherence -- nobody else can really compute anything because the results decay too fast. If you read up on the subject, you will find that almost all of the advances have been made by IBM. Though the date of release is completely irrelevant to your claims that IBM can't develop technology, some claims have quantum computers appearing within the next two decades. Not "many decades." Again, this is a matter of speculation (or academic guessing games) and completely off-topic. I'm not sure why you mention Deep Blue as it was bought from CMU. They did design all the ASICs, though. I've read that it pushes 1 billion nodes/sec. I want to say that it was able to search 42 ply deep with heavy pruning. It also had a 32 GB endgame database. Very impressive machine. -Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.