Hadn't you guys read that with more accurate lasers it can have better accuracy? Maybe the problem is only in reading the qubits...

When they save your mama's fat ass from cancer by using a quamputer to draw the right moleculae for the ultimate cancer medicine I'm gonna tell you guys " I told you so."

Isn't it now just a matter of time before we have throw out some of our favorite Internet security algorithms?

Reliability improves with time. I'm sure that transistors were not that reliable when they first came out. Now an individual component is so close to 100% reliable that you can put a billion of them on a chip and the whole thing will still work.

The question is whether there is a fundamental upper limit to their performance. If not, it's just a matter of time.

I am so glad some of you lotare not in charge of sci-fi funding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Can it play Crisis.

Will it still boot OS X 10.6.2? If not, I'm not upgrading, and I'm going to be pissed at Apple for intentionally breaking compatibility.

It really works at 100% accuracy,just never look in the box.

79% accurate, LMFAO!

And each gate is only 90% accurate.

Seriously, is this useful?

Is the error due to the mechanics and materials of cutting edge, or is it a fundamental that all of this tech will have 79-90% accuracy?

Well, 79% isn't too bad, depending on how much time is saved by running the complex question on a quantum computer... you could run it 3-4 times and be pretty sure the answer you got back most of the time is the correct one. Plus it's sometimes easier to verify an answer than to come up with it in the first place.

@bigger_luddite

How fortunate, then, that we don't have a long history of businessmen running scams on scientists.

Oh wait. We do. Darn.

The fact is that there will always be unscrupulous people running scams.

The fact ALSO is that were it not for 'pure research', you wouldn't be reading this post. The foundations of computer technology rest in some very obscure mathematics, the principles of which wouldn't have been found without 'pure research'.

@Jason Goatcher
In case you left out a </snark tag: Almost nothing useful ever comes from "pure research" except that those funded at it get to play with expensive toys, the only drawback being that they must justify it to the idiots handing over (usually taxpayer) money.

For instance: fuel and solar cells were invented in the 1950's and are still not practical. And electric cars ran on US streets before 1910: edged out because only practical for limited use -- STILL true. (On the other hand, STEAM cars of around 1930 were well advanced, many advantages, but companies didn't make it through the Depression.)

If you don't know there's a long history of "scientists" running scams promising practicality for far-out ideas "real soon now", at least try not to be suckered into cheerleading for them.

"But it did so with an accuracy of only 79 per cent. Each gate is more than 90 per cent accurate but when you stack them together the total figure falls to 79 per cent or so for a given operation"

so when you get enough gates to do something useful they become useless?

I know a lot of people are thinking this is a bunch of crap and not useful at all, but many of the technologies we use today, like the Internet and microwave ovens, are based on this so-called "pure research." Give it another 10-15 years and we might be able to even have a viable form of this technology in our homes.

At least we can rest assured that any and all Ping-Pong contest have been solved with 79% accuracy. Two qubits and two players should match-up nicely (just forget about the referee).

I'd really like to get to the point where 22 qubits are in working order. Then we can ditch football too.