I wish I had mod points. That obviously wasn't a troll.

At risk of damaging my karma: guys, just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's trolling. There is no -1 Disagree mod. The poster is pretty obviously arguing a genuinely held opinion and coming back to support it, and yet even their reply post later on has been modded Troll.

I also don't think it's that contentious to claim that parts of our economy are dependent on copyright law. I'd take issue with the insane lengths of copyright periods, not with its mere existence. But that's beside the point!

which means I can tell that I wouldn't have understood it from reading that article.

It's not one of those nonsense articles; the author clearly has some idea what she's talking about, but don't feel like you should be able to get some basic understanding of quantum computing from reading this. The information really isn't there. It starts with 'what is quantum physics' and very quickly moves on to 'what are quantum computers used for'. How they actually work is I think glossed over in the sentence "This shared state means that a change applied to one entangled object is instantly reflected by its correlated fellows - hence the massive parallel potential of a quantum computer. ", and if that was enough explanation for you, you're psychic.

David Mermin's lecture notes in an earlier comment though look great! Thanks for the link.

Also if anyone can explain to me what the article means by:

One more thing, there is a minority of scientists who believe that building a quantum computer will turn out to be out-and-out impossible. However, if those scientists are right, the implication of not being able to build such a machine is that quantum mechanics itself, as a description of nature, is wrong. Either way, the stakes could not be higher.

let me know. I'm guessing that this is a simplistic reference to something real, but I have no idea what, and I can't understand how it's consistent with the fact mentioned earlier in the article that 'toy' (i.e. few-bit) quantum computers have been demonstrated to work in the lab.

The name of T. J. Watson means a courage none can stem,
And we feel honored to be here to toast the I. B. M.

In reply to some posts below, it's also not necessary to use barley in beer. Other grains work and there are a couple of companies making gluten-free beer. Barley's just traditional.

However we don't have any substitute for wheat in terms of the texture of bread. In this case it's kind of a catch-22 as it's the gluten specifically (not just the wheat) that achieves the soft, springy effect you want. I have tried a lot of recipes and honestly think that nothing else works as well. So yes, I want gluten that is more tolerable to people with Coeliac disease, please.

I have Coeliac and I find this "gluten-free fad" thing cuts both ways. On the one hand, I'm sure it makes gluten-free products more available and so I know I should be happy about it. But I can't help finding it annoying to have people say "oh yes, I have that too!" when it's perfectly obvious they don't because they only avoid gluten when they feel like it, and they've never got themselves tested. The other annoyance is staff at some restaurants & cafes have encountered this fad and assume me asking for gluten-free is just some kind of lifestyle choice, and they are accordingly unhelpful.

What I want this discovery to lead to is not a test but a fix! Maybe a "cure", but that's very ambitious. Or maybe a gluten-like substance that I can use to make "real bread" but which doesn't contain the trigger protein fragments. Gluten makes bread springy and soft. Plenty of other grains taste just as good, but none of the gluten subsitutes (xanthan gum etc) give you the texture of bread. If I could get something that worked like gluten and didn't trigger the autoimmune reaction, I would be very happy.