Slashdot Mirror

All I can find is this rather content-free press release. I tried Deutsch's home page, SPIRES and arXiv, and none of them seem to have any papers by him on this subject since 2002.

Maybe you should look into this really nice bunch of intros to quantum computing. (Click on "Tutorials").

http://www.qubit.org/library/intros/comp/comp.html /

http://beige.ucs.indiana.edu/B679/M743.html/

http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~oemer/

No mention is made of Schroedinger, whose "cat state" they were alluding to. Einstein never made any "theory" about producing cat states. The EPR paper didn't really have anything to do with Schroedinger's Cat and quantum superposition of macroscopic objects, but rather the paper attacked QM on the grounds that it was not a local-realistic theory. One has to break at least one of those two assumptions about the physical world in order to get the answers that QM produces (and is supported by experiment), this result was proven by John S. Bell in the 60's using his (should be) famous Bell's Inequalities.

Schroedinger wrote his famous paper describing quantum entanglement and naming it for the first time after reading the EPR paper, and saying that entanglement was the "defining feature" of quantum theory. The paper also introduced his famous cat. Wigner extended the Gedanken experiment by introducing "Wigner's Friend" who had to look inside the cat box, and thus also becoming placed into a superposition, this time simultaneously seeing both a dead and alive cat. Both Schroedinger's Cat and Wigner's Friend have very little to do with the EPR paper.

Einstein was one of the people involved in developing quantum theory, but Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, von Neumann, etc who were more instrumental in its development weren't even mentioned. Einstein was very antagonistic towards QM, even after it had been extremely successful at describing physical systems and experimental results. He never really exactly thought QM wasn't right, just not complete in the local realistic sense. To the theorist, such experiments demonstrating the existence of cat states are simply to be expected, we'd be so much more surprised (and excited actually) if the experiments indicated something other than what QM would predict. To satisfy the ardent Local Realist, the Holy Grail is the Loophole Free Bell Test (close the efficiency/fair sampling, locality, random choice loopholes all simultaneously). That'd be a definitive experiment to finally nail the lid on the Einsteinian Realists, but for the majority of physicists, we'd hardly care because it's almost taken as given that the results will simply support QM and not local realism.

In the end, Nature is the final arbiter, and if QM predicts the results of experiment better than any other conceivable theory, then our bets should be on QM. There have been no compelling experiments to indicate that QM is anything other than correct, save the fact that it needs to somehow mesh with GR at some energy/length scale.

Joel Bloggs
http://www.quantiki.org/

References
http://cam.qubit.org/users/matthias/Entanglement/E ntanglement.php

Have a look at the tutorials at QuBit.org. The general principle is that the QuBit computer uses constructive interference between the qubits to generate a new state that is closer towards a solution, and eventually reaches a final state. This article describes how to implement Quantum Cryptoanalysis using a Quantum Fourier Transform.

As an example, imaging the qubits were discs of polarizing glass being rapidly spun by electric motors. You could test the state of each bit by having a set of lasers on one side to a beam of light through the discs to a bunch of light sensors on the other side. Depending on the states detected by the light sensors, the motors are used to adjust the rotation or position the discs. If you get the right feedback system, you will iterate towards whatever solution needed.

The only difference is that the quantum computer would be instantanous.

Have a look at the tutorials at QuBit.org. The general principle is that the QuBit computer uses constructive interference between the qubits to generate a new state that is closer towards a solution, and eventually reaches a final state. This article describes how to implement Quantum Cryptoanalysis using a Quantum Fourier Transform.

As an example, imaging the qubits were discs of polarizing glass being rapidly spun by electric motors. You could test the state of each bit by having a set of lasers on one side to a beam of light through the discs to a bunch of light sensors on the other side. Depending on the states detected by the light sensors, the motors are used to adjust the rotation or position the discs. If you get the right feedback system, you will iterate towards whatever solution needed.

The only difference is that the quantum computer would be instantanous.

Or even on silicon!

I know you meant this humorously, but it's probably worth noting that in reality, the quantum computers that have been built are NOT in silicon either -- in fact, they're not really based on semiconductors at all.

They're currently (basically) a test-tube full of specially constructed "soup" of (for example) hydrogen and carbon-14 (yes, the same that's used for carbon dating) suspended in chloroform. The results from this are read using an NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) machine, essentially like those used in medical imaging.

Unfortunately, even the people doing research in this direction admit that there's little likelihood of building NMR based quantum computers of more than a few (half a dozen or so) qubits, which is really too small to do much -- and the NMR-based reading of the results is also quite slow. OTOH, while they may not be particularly practical, they have managed to do real quantum computation this way.

--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Having a look at Quantum computers development, i still think that this will be the next Big leap in performance!
By 2010-15 (that's already pretty far out) i could imagine processors will need a complete new mechanism to go any faster.

Well...ermmm...gramatically, he could be saying that it is just the "classes" of electronics that are new, not that they are based on some new quantum principals. But leave it to /.ers who pretty much know he meant quantum computing and blow it way out of proportion.

People have been building quantum computers for years now. The biggest ones these days (around 14-qubits) are NMR quantum computers, although that technique appears to have scalability issues.

Seems to me that this is only news since they plan on selling quantum-CPU time.

You can't have it both ways - smoothed out at the atomic level and re-emerging at the neurological level...

Yes you can (sort of). Check out the MWI, sometimes called Many-Worlds or Many-Histories model of quantum mechanics (Deutsch, Everett, Dewitt, and many others). There is no Copenhagen-style collapse; all possible futures do exist physically. Provides a mathematical model for counterfactuals, free will, and probability. And no faster-than-light signaling.

On this topic, unfortunately, Penrose has missed the boat and Dennett and the others are on the right track.

It's not the act of intercepting the photon itself (although replicating the same state of the photon that was sent to you would be interesting), but the choosing of filters that count.

1) Photons are consumed upon observation
2) You wouldn't know which filters the sender chose and to determine as much, you would have to offer to the sender which filters you chose and they would reply with a "correct/incorrect" message. To do so would require that you reveal yourself.
3) "An eavesdropper is bound to introduce errors to this transmission because he/she does not know in advance the type of polarisation of each photon and quantum mechanics does not allow him/her to acquire sharp values of two non-commuting observables (here rectilinear and diagonal polarisations). The two legitimate users of the quantum channel test for eavesdropping by revealing a random subset of the key bits and checking (in public) the error rate. Although they cannot prevent eavesdropping, they will never be fooled by an eavesdropper because any, however subtle and sophisticated, effort to tap the channel will be detected. Whenever they are not happy with the security of the channel they can try to set up the key distribution again."
(http://www.qubit.org/library/intros/cryp t.html)

One of the key to making things at nanoscale is to have fault and defect tolerance. With billions of elements in the system, you are bound to get manufacturing defects as well as many run-time defects. Even in modern DRAMs they have redundant columns of memory cells to improve the yield by swapping the defective ones with spare ones. FPGA(Field Programmable Gate Arrays) offer in-circuit reconfigurability. HP showed Teremac few years ago which had millions of defects yet it worked just "fine" by detecting the defects and reconfiguring around it.

In short there will be sources of errors and faults in these systems, but there are various ways to get around it. Also in quantum computing, you can encode your data in such a way that it is immune to noise (atleast to certain extent) and is called Quantum error correction.

But also remember that science is not just about destination but also the journey. Even if practical quantum computers are never built, we are likely to learn many interesting aspects which may be used elsewhere.

The Fabric of Reality. (Seeing your email address, I note there is a translation into German, among others.)

The Fabric of Reality. (Seeing your email address, I note there is a translation into German, among others.)

Well, just googling for quantum computer gave me as very first hit http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro. html, which looks quite good to me.

Also under the first links is http://www.qubit.org/library/intros/comp/comp.html , which also looks quite good to me. (the whole www.qubit.org is interesting, BTW).

If you want to go a bit more in depth, I think http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~schmuel/comp/comp. html looks good.

And if you can't wait to program a QC, then you might be interested in QCL, the quantum computation language. Yes, you can download a compiler there (which of course only simulates a QC, since current computers don't yet come with quantum processors :-)).

The amazing thing is how well Moore's law has stood up against repeated Malthusian forecasts of its demise. One still presumes that the fences of quantum uncertainty, relativistic delay, and heat production will prevent Moore's law from continuing number of device doubling indefinitely, without major paradigm shift (async to beat the clock?reversible to beat heat & entropy? optical? quantum?), but mere technological advances may continue far beyond my Malthusian imagination.

================
Cole's Law -- Finely Sliced Cabbage with dressing.

Just say 20 years from now I am on my quantum fandangle computer that does sub-atomic calculations, what happens when background radiation hits the processor and flips a few 1s and 0s?

Quantum error correction. is a sub-field of quantum computing concerned with just that, how to effectively perform a quantum computation in the presence of background radiation and other stuff which sub-atomic thingies tend to be quite sensitive to.

The likelyhood of flipping a few zeros and ones ( and other errors which can afflict quantum bits) is very high, and in reality is more a continuously decay than an instant flip.

It has been shown, however, that this continuous decay is equivalent to flip errors and phase errors (the other sort of quantum error) occuring with some probability. That probability is 1 in 10 for most of the current experiments, compared to your box in front of you which is more like 1 in 10 billion.

Fault-tolerant quantum computing is a theory field of research concerned with how good quantum computers have to be before quantum error correction can work. The best results at the moment suggest a probability of error of 1 in 1000 is good enough. The experimenters have a fair ways to go yet.

First, in principle you can prepare a superposition of all possible inputs to your program. Run the program once. You've now got a superposition of all possible outputs that can be generated from your inputs.

Second, within the program itself, performing an operation some number of times N can lead to superpositions containing ~ exp(N) terms. That is, with a linear number of operations you can generate an exponentially large number of states.

You can read more about quantum computation here or here .

I have recently learnt that IPSEC/IKE does indeed give you PFS, perfect forward secrecy.

Tsk, tsk. Even that only uses a 1024 bit key, so I only need to try 1.8e+308 or so possible keys to find the right one-- not currently practical, but a few years of Moore's law might render the problem solvable within the lifetime of the known universe, even precluding a major breakthrough in quantum computing.

There's a difference between problems that are absurdly difficult, and problems that are outright impossible.

...as observing the data in transit actually changes it

Quantum mechanical systems, unlike classical systems, can exist in a superposition of states. A classical bit for example, can only be either 0 or 1, while a quantum bit, or qubit, can exist as both 0 and 1 at the same time with some probability. Hence, when you 'observe' a quantum system, the system is forced to be (I won't use the word collapse here!) in a new state consistent with the apparatus or observable you used to observe it. That's an oversimplified explanation. Go to the tutorials section at the Cambridge Quantum Computing website for more tutorials and simple reading on how this stuff works, including some very cool articles by Artur Ekert, who independantly discovered quantum crypto

What maybe a few people have missed is that there will be some incredibly interesting "hardware" out there in the future.

Some people have already demonstrated things like using DNA computers to solve travelling salesman problems, Quantum Computing and Grid Computers.

Perhaps what this article is suggesting is one way for developers of entirely new "hardware" to easily supply operators and types (syntax) to any programming language.

It would be interesting to be able to write program a that talked directly to the nervous system using fairly standard <your language of choice> syntax, that when compiled produced a real piece of nano "machinery".

What about Richard Feynman ...

See the references to Feynman's work in Deutch's 1985 paper Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer :

Feynman (1982) went one step closer to a true quantum computer with his 'universal quantum simulator' [.... although] it is not a computing machine in the sense of this article.

jfern wrote:

... or Peter Shor?

What about Richard Feynman ...

See the references to Feynman's work in Deutch's 1985 paper Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer :

Feynman (1982) went one step closer to a true quantum computer with his 'universal quantum simulator' [.... although] it is not a computing machine in the sense of this article.

jfern wrote:

... or Peter Shor?

David Deutsch's "Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer" is now available in PostScript and PDF format. This article laid the foundations for the field of quantum computation and exhibits the first quantum algorithm. We felt that it would be appropriate to make the paper also accessible to researchers who have difficulty obtaining the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

David Deutsch's "Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer" is now available in PostScript and PDF format. This article laid the foundations for the field of quantum computation and exhibits the first quantum algorithm. We felt that it would be appropriate to make the paper also accessible to researchers who have difficulty obtaining the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Fortunately, the book (that Slashdot didn't link to) is not written by the same person as the book review that Slashdot did link to.

That's the author of the somewhat muddled book review that Slashdot linked to, not the author of the book that Slashdot didn't link to. (Actually I think amazon has some better written reviews than this one.)

That's the author of the somewhat muddled book review that Slashdot linked to, not the author of the book that Slashdot didn't link to. (Actually I think amazon has some better written reviews than this one.)

Don't blame Deutsch for the allsci reviewer's article! A major part of the book is in fact an explicit defense of Popperian epistemology.

Don't blame Deutsch for the allsci reviewer's article! A major part of the book is in fact an explicit defense of Popperian epistemology.

However, quantum cryptography does not rely on large numbers that are hard to factor, but on the fact that it is impossible (according to currently known physics, as correctly pointed out) for someone to eavesdrop without being detected.

www.qubit.org has this explanation:

The basic idea of cryptosystems (B) is as follows. A sequence of correlated particle pairs is generated, with one member of each pair being detected by each party (for example, a pair of so-called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen photons, whose polarisations are measured by the parties). An eavesdropper on this communication would have to detect a particle to read the signal, and retransmit it in order for his presence to remain unknown. However, the act of detection of one particle of a pair destroys its quantum correlation with the other, and the two parties can easily verify whether this has been done, without revealing the results of their own measurements, by communication over an open channel.

So to use this for safe communication, you would send some random data through the connection, and once you are sure there were no eavesdroppers, you can use this random data as the key for normal symmetrical encryption. And if the random key is as large as the data you encrypt with it, even normal symmetrical encryption can't be cracked with a quantum computer.

The purpose of cryptography is to transmit information in such a way that access to it is restricted entirely to the intended recipient. Originally the security of a cryptotext depended on the secrecy of the entire encrypting and decrypting procedures; however, today we use ciphers for which the algorithm for encrypting and decrypting could be revealed to anybody without compromising the security of a particular cryptogram. In such ciphers a set of specific parameters, called a key, is supplied together with the plaintext as an input to the encrypting algorithm, and together with the cryptogram as an input to the decrypting algorithm.The encrypting and decrypting algorithms are publicly announced; the security of the cryptogram depends entirely on the secrecy of the key, and this key must consist of any randomly chosen, sufficiently long string of bits.

Read more here

Looking around on the web I found this rather good site on Quantum Computing.
This Loschmidt echo thing seems to be buried quite deep, I have not found it referenced in my Quantum Mechanics books.

I agree - I see Itanium in a completely different class from Xeon and Opteron. In know a lot of people around here complain about how AMD is getting screwed by Intel and what-not (this is /. after all), but I think the competition can do nothing but provide us consumers with better processors!

Intel won't kill off AMD or buy them because that would basically mean that Intel would OWN the x86 market. So, with AMD out there to continue pushing the development edge, Intel will have to keep up with the advances that are made by AMD, IBM, and all other peers in their market.

I think it will be very interesting to see what happens to processor technology in the next few years - 64-bit computing will become the norm (AMD and Apple already delivering products, and Intel getting ready to...no where to go but up). It's what follows the 64-bit jump that will be really cool. Can anyone say Qubits?

... by firing rhubidium [sic] through a photon of light ...

This is completely meaningless. Photons don't occupy volume in any well-defined way.

The problem was that for quantum communication, you need to disentangle 2 separate photons from an entangled state so that any change you make to one makes ann instantaneous change to the other, it's twin if you like and that can be done it seems.

This is not how a quantum cryptosystem works. See this article, and note that the technique that currently seems to show the most promise for cryptography is (A). Messages cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, as relativity dictates that your actions cannot affect a distant "simultaneous" measurement, and no one has found a reproducible experiment to contradict this assertion (despite lots of trying). It is a popular misconception that quantum entanglement can be used to communicate instantaneously, but the correlations that are measured do not actually cause any exchange of information. If you do something to one of your photons, it will simply destroy the entanglement.

On the subject securing optical links, quantum crypto is an interesting aproach. It is not useful to transmit a lot of data, but can be used in secure key interchange.

More on this:
here
here
and here

This could be the start of something beautiful.

Compare this with that.

But this issue seems to be fraught with misunderstanding.

Quite right. By 2038 computing power will be measured in qubits

maybe.

While not exactly classic papers, some of these may be regarded as classic by our grandchildren when the time comes, since they're at the forefront of computer science's research today. A good introduction to quantum computing was recently linked in a Slashdot story posting: The Centre for Quantum Computation's Tutorials. Very, very interesting reading, if a bit advanced.

First, I'd like to point out that quantum computation and quantum encryption are two almost completely separate concepts. Quantum encryption is based on the fact that quantum states cannot be measured without altering. The most common example is the polarization of a photon, but it will work for any quantum state, so long as there exist, effectively, two unique states that can transmit the data.

Quantum computation, however, is much more complex and much more interesting. Quantum computers are based on the concept of quantum entanglement, the ability of a quantum state to exist in a superposition of all of its mutually exclusive states: It's a 1 and a 0. However, this is not as easy to use as one might think. While it's true that if you have n quantum logic gates you have the ability to input 2^n data values simultaneously (as opposed to only 1 piece of data if you have n digital logic gates), this is not going to be the end of classical computing for a few reasons. First, quantum computers have to be perfectly reversible. That means for every output there's an input and vice versa. And there has to be no way of knowing the initial states of the data. You don't process data, you process probabilities in a quantum computer; if you know exactly what any one value is throughout the computation, you can find out all of the values: the superposition ends and you're stuck with a useless chunk of machinery. This means YOU CAN ONLY GET ONE RESULT FROM ANY QUANTUM COMPUTATION, THE END RESULT. You can't see what the data in the middle is or the computer becomes useless. (Landauer's principle makes heat loss data loss. When your processor gets hot, it's losing data. If the same thing happened to a quantum computer, it wouldn't be quantum anymore.) Decoherence is what happens when you randomly lose data to the environment by design, not by choice, and the superposition ends. This is bad for Q.C. Oh, and quantum computers can only do *some* things faster, like prime factorization and discrete logarithms. Not multiplication or addition. Plus, the circuits that would do basic arithmetic would be bigger and slower than what you've currently got.

So what does this all mean? It means that quantum computers are going to provide some advantages (real quick big number factorization), and some disadvantages (that whole RSA standard). The most realistic initial use of quantum computers will be as add-ons to existing super-computers to resolve certain types of NP-Complete headaches that regular math can't simplify yet. At best they will someday be an add-on to your PC; but they will never replace the digital computer.~

If you want more info, check out http://www.qubit.org, it's got some decent tutorials.

Consider a register composed of three physical bits. Any classical register of that type can store in a given moment of time only one out of eight different numbers i.e the register can be in only one out of eight possible configurations such as 000, 001, 010, ... 111. A quantum register composed of three qubits can store in a given moment of time all eight numbers in a quantum superposition. This is quite remarkable that all eight numbers are physically present in the register but it should be no more surprising than a qubit being both in state 0 and 1 at the same time. If we keep adding qubits to the register we increase its storage capacity exponentially i.e. three qubits can store 8 different numbers at once, four qubits can store 16 different numbers at once, and so on; in general L qubits can store 2^L numbers at once.

The point is, according to this model all universes obey the same laws and thus all of them allow for the multiverse, so the above argument does not apply. It's a bit like saying since there are infinitely many numbers (or mathematical statements) that there is one which does not allow for any other numbers.

A couple of quick refs to read up on multiverse interpretations of QM: The Everett Interpretation, and David Deutsch's home page.

-- Tristero

qubit.org

here

Especially recommended are the tutorials where you can pick up material corresponding to your current understanding of quantum mechanics.

For this article, you might be looking for the Kindergarten explanation of entanglement

here

Especially recommended are the tutorials where you can pick up material corresponding to your current understanding of quantum mechanics.

For this article, you might be looking for the Kindergarten explanation of entanglement

here

Especially recommended are the tutorials where you can pick up material corresponding to your current understanding of quantum mechanics.

For this article, you might be looking for the Kindergarten explanation of entanglement

This site managed to explain it to this programmer with only a moderate starting knowledge of particle physics.

Oh yeah, and I think that simple life forms will be made with this technology and some idiot scientist will think he's all bad-ass, until the damn thing morphs into some wicked, evil thing right out of hell like something in Doom II and it will turn into a three-headed huge dinosaur-like creature, about the size of Godzilla or something, and it'll go stomping around and smashing up all of human civilization until there is literally nothing left in the world except for these things fighting amongst themselves. And that day will be called Armageddon, the end of all things. Oh well. For now, all I need is another Negra Modelo.

If you didn't get what the hell I was talking about in the first paragraph, please allow me to summarize it right here:

The processors in our computers will someday consist of the following technologies, combined as outlined in the aforementioned articles:

• Gate-based logic.
• Quantum computing.
• Biological computing.
• Nanotechnology.

Some interesting information, found at the National Nanotechnology Initiative's site, at http://www.nano.gov/nsetmem.htm, which lists the member participants:

PARTICIPANTS: NSET Members

Chair: M.C. Roco, NSF
Executive Secretary: J.S. Murday, NRL

Members: OSTP: S.N. Pace
OMB: D. Radzanowski
CIA: F.D. Gac
DOA: P. Schwab
DOC: C. Campbell, S. Yun,
DOD: W. Berry, J.S. Murday, G.S. Pomrenke
DOE: I.L. Thomas, R. Price, B.G. Volintine
DOJ: D. Boyd, T. DePersia
DOS: R. Braibanti, R. McCreight
DOT: R.R. John, A. Lacombe
DoTREAS: E. Murphy
EPA: L.A. Friedl, S. Lingle
NASA: S. Venneri, M. Hirschbein, M. Dastoor
NIH: J.A. Schloss, E. Kousvelari
NRC: U.S. Bhachu
NIST: P. Casassa, C.R. Snyder, P. Looney
NSF: M.C. Roco, T.A. Weber, M.P. Henkart.

According to the Nanoindustries site at http://www.nanoindustries.com/, Nanotechnology can provide vast benefits above and beyond what is being experimented with today. For example:

Nanotechnology could save the ozone layer. Whilst experimenting with nanospheres and perfluorodecalin, a liquid used in the production of synthetic blood, researchers at Germany's University of Ulm have stumbled across a phenomenon that could ultimately help remove ozone-harming chemicals from the atmosphere. The perfluorodecalin, against all expectations, was taken up by a water-based suspension of 60 nm diameter polystyrene articles. nanotechweb 1/30/03

For those of you interested in Quantum computing, there is an interesting book by Braunstein... you can find more information about it at http://www.informatics.bangor.ac.uk/~schmuel/book/ book1.html.

With the Bush Administration streamlining services to help U.S. businesses grow, I think I can go ahead and have my Negra Modelo now.

This post has been composed of serious material, funny material, crap, and useful information. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please call us toll free by paying us the sum of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00 USD) to receive our toll free voice telephone number, or simply email us by using the best email application on the market, Microsoft Outlook.

• Microsoft is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
• "Isuzu" is a registered trademark of American Isuzu Motors Inc.
• "Chrysler" is a registered trademark of DaimlerChrysler.
• "Chevrolet" is a registered trademark of General Motors Corporation.
• "Volvo" is a registered trademark of Volvo Cars of North America, LLC.
• "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
• "Lotus" is a registered trademark of Lotus Development Corporation in the United States and other countries.
• "Saturn" is a registered trademark of Saturn Corporation.
• "Nestea" is a registered trademark of Soci,t, des Produits Nestl, S.A., Switzerland. "Evian" is a registered trademark of Groupe Danone.
• "Mitsubishi" is a registered trademark of Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.
• "Oldsmobile" is a registered trademark of General Motors Corporation.
• "Nissan" is a registered trademark of Nissan North America, Inc.
• "Acura" is a registered trademark of American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
• "Jeep" is a registered trademark of DaimlerChrysler.
• "Toyota" is a registered trademark of Toyota Motor Corporation.
• "Hyundai" is a registered trademark of Hyundai Motor America.
• "Plymouth" is a registered trademark of DaimlerChrysler.
• "Mickey's Avonturen" is a trademark of Disney Enterprises, Inc.
• "Cadillac" is a registered trademark of General Motors Corporation.
• "Dodge" is a registered trademark of DaimlerChrysler.
• "Mazda" is a registered trademark of Mazda Motor Corporation.
• "Honda" is a registered trademark of American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
• "Ford" is a registered trademark of Ford Motor Company.
• "Mercury" is a registered trademark of Ford Motor Company.
• "Lincoln" is a registered trademark of Ford Motor Company.
• "Coca- Cola", "Coca-Cola light", "Cherry Coke", "Sprite", "Fanta", "Aquarius", "Bonaqua", "Kinley", "Minute Maid", "Splash", "Aquana"the design of the "Coca-Cola Contour" Bottle and the "Coca-Cola Red Disc" icon are registered trademarks of The Coca-Cola Company.
• "Subaru" is a registered trademark of Subaru of America, Inc.
• "Kia" is a registered trademark of Kia Motors America, Inc.
• "GMC" is a registered trademark of General Motors Corporation.
• "IBM," the e-business logo, eServer, iSeries, pSeries, xSeries, zSeries, Websphere, DB2, and Tivoli are trademarks or registered trademarks of International Business Machines Corporation in the United States and other countries.
• "Red Hat" is a registered trademark of Red Hat, Inc.
• "Red Devil Energy Drink" is a registered trademark of Futuristic Brands S.A., Luxemburg.
• All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

It's time for another beer. It's time for another beer. It's time for another beer. It's time for another beer. It's time for another beer. And I'm going to have a Negra Modelo. Or two. Or three. Or four. Or five..... I have too much time on my hands.