Slashdot Mirror
U of Michigan creates first Quantum Microchip
zigziggityzoo writes "According to this article, The University of Michigan has created the first Quantum Microchip, which could eventually lead to the first instance of Quantum Computing ever." The bad news? We won't be seeing any notebooks or handhelds with quantum chips in the near future.
It is not a first post until someone reads it as a first post
I'm gonna need a spec.
Mox
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these bady boys!
(Had to, sorry.)
The bad news? We won't be seeing any notebooks or handhelds with quantum chips in the near future.
Yeah, right. Let me introduce myself, my name is Richard and I am Vice Peon, Assistant to the High Junior Acolyte In Charge of Dustbins of the Holy Order of 8th Day Advanced Micro Devicers. Once we were few in numbers, our faith challenged at every turn by the Church of Intel. Scoffed at, most cruelly as rank copyists without an innovation to our name. After years of wandering the wilderness between iterations our faith was rewarded most gloriously! Speak not of Quantum Notbooks and Handhelds being a thing of dreams, for we know the mighty AMD will deliver.
You'll see, you just watch! Ya betcha! Wrist devices, wearable quantum rings. Any second now. Yeah...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
A commodore 64 the size of a grain of rice! ;-)
Unfortunately plugging in the joystics becomes harder.
That's one small chip for man, one Quantum leap for mankind.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
as you might be able to know where the computer is but not what it is doing or what it is doing but not where it is at the same time...
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Expect this story to be dupped again. This time, it will be the fault of their new CPU, not Slashdot.
Finally, a dupe excuse for Slashdot!
Life is not for the lazy.
So, they still have a ways to go if they haven't achieved a 2-qubit entanglement yet, but it is at least a manfacturing advance.
The Developers are expected to make it more stable then the current release or face the "Chairing of their life".
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
1: As a proof of concept, it's a good start. I was always rather unsure how practical all this QC stuff actually was, as although the benefits look great, the technology seems to be incredibly complex.
2: It's a nice slap in the face for the various people who still doubt the validity of quantum theory itself. The fact that this is possible shows it's definately on the right lines.
the dupe could be the first story!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From TFA:
Researchers believe quantum systems will be much more efficient at rock-solid cryptography and mass database searches than running the latest version of Doom.
Any particular reason why? I mean, bits are bits, are they not? Or is this saying a game architechture couldn't take advantage of a qubit?
The Power of Quantum Computers is a good insight into just why this is a good system for factorization, and thus, breaking the stuffing out of encryption systems.
Will your notebook or desktop PC someday sport quantum innards? It's unlikely, at least in the immediate future. Researchers believe quantum systems will be much more efficient at rock-solid cryptography and mass database searches than running the latest version of Doom.
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm crushed!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
What they didn't tell you is that every time they tried to measure the speed, the chip would break.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
"For example, an up-spin can represent a one, or a down-spin can represent a zero -- or the qubit can occupy both states simultaneously"
This way windows can be working and not working at the same time.
oh, wait.....
the one that was two wires crisscrossing in a ring magnet. anyone else remember those?
"He's a real midnight golfer"
I'm GLAD it won't happen soon! Imagine someone tapping into your SSL sessions with his quantum chip!
Besides, i'm much more interested in optical or spin-based chips with nearly zero-power-consumption than a quantum entanglement chip.
Keep in mind a 64 bit processor can address 17 billion gig of ram. You only really need 128 bit processing if you want to address more than that. 64 bit processing is only interesting because we've begun to hit the 4 gig/processor barrier. The wikipedia article on 128 bit processing points out that it's probably not efficient for a single 128 bit processor to have over 17 billion gig of ram to itself anyway -- it'd probably make far more sense to split the ram up between several 64 bit processors instead.
that means when they know what speed it's running, they won't know where it is?
(Yeah, bit rubbish, sorry)
They have no idea what this will lead to. Remember research 50 years ago? Huge, vacuum tubes, hundreds of calculations a second (maybe). They thought the world would have maybe 5-10 computers. Who envisioned Doom, or the Internet?
Same way with quantum computing. Right now we have very primitive experimental technology and think a few researchers might eventually benefit. I'd like to see what we're doing in 50-100 years.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
When (if) a quantum computer can eventually be made, it'll probably have more then enough power to crack many of the currently used encryption schemes. Such a big jump in computing ability (from that little I've read about quantum computing and my roommates ranting, it's that powerful) will definately present a problem for security schemes. Things may get interesting then......
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Each time a qubit is added to a quantum system, its computing power doubles.
Wouldn't a regular binary 2-postion bit (0 or 1) double the "power"? Similarly, wouldn't a qubit, 3-position bit (0 or 1 or both) triple the "power"?
I'm sure they're doing some great work... but my chemistry tells me something a little funny about this quote:
"The cadmium atom that has lost an electron becomes a negatively charged ion, which can then be controlled with an electrical field," said Daniel Stick, a doctoral student in the University of Michigan's physics department who participated in the work.
Excuse me ? Generally when atoms LOSE electrons, they become POSITIVE. Quantum wierdness indeed.
And the U of M Dean wonders if each new leap will be the leap home.
yes | no
No fair! You've changed the outcome by measuring it!
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Unless something weird is going on.. it shouldnt. Likely an article error. I posted on the same thing about 10 seconds later than you, too. :)
Leave it to slashdot to correct press-science. In fact, come to think of it, I think a lot of major news articles would benefeit from being run by the hawkish eyes of the slashdot crowd. There's so many errors in science journalism these days its embarrassing for the media.
Ah... ahh.... ahhh choooo!
Hey, were did my CPU upgrade go?
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If it had more than one too many in the first place =)
Freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it.
Why is stuff like this left to university departments anyway? Where's the startup companies doing research to make a quantum chip and be the next Intel/Motorolla/AMD? Speaking of the current giants, why aint they doing this research in an effort to stay ahead of their competitors? It's just fat cat compacancy and it makes my stomach churn to see no-one putting their hand up to knock them off their perch.
How we know is more important than what we know.
From TFA, emphasis added:
"The cadmium atom that has lost an electron becomes a negatively charged ion, which can then be controlled with an electrical field," said Daniel Stick, a doctoral student in the University of Michigan's physics department who participated in the work.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but basic high school chemistry says that an atom that loses an electron has an overall positive charge, which makes it a positively charged ion or a cation...
I'm not sure I want this guy designing my computer. =)
"Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers".
Attributed to one Mr. Watson, president of International Business Machines corporation, in 1943.
Insert the word "quantum", shake, repeat (history).
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
If it runs Windows does that mean it can be both in a crashed state and an uncrashed state?
Uncertainty principle: You either know what speed your computer runs at, or where it is, but never both at the same time.
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
So what are the state names, "tea", "no tea", and "intelligent"...?
I'd buy that.. but metal atoms REALLY dont like to be simple anions (i.e. -1), let alone -2, which would be the requisite. The real trick would be to keep the metal from giving up that extra electron.
Will there be a Moore's Law for the quantum components (ie. the ions)?
Suppose we start off with 8 qubits, then how long will it take us before we get to 16, and then 32, etc?
How many qubits would you have to get upto, in order for a quantum microchip to catch on for mainstream business and consumer applications?
for the next Duke Nukem Forever.
Actually for some people there are reasons to move beyond 64 bits besides address space. There are a lot of processors that are used in DSP that work on >64 bit intergers. However for a general purpose machine proccessing of large intergers is probably better off in specialised units like altivec.
As a side note current 64 bit processors only actually can access about 40-45 bits of address space since all those extra pins cost money and are unlikely to be used.
QC = the end of encryption as we know it, not the start of amazingly uncrackable codes.
Probably what will happen is that only the spooks can have a QC (like with Cray computers, which must be destroyed when decomissioned, to prevent falling into the "wrong" hands). Unless a way can be found to build a viable QC in the back yard...
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
...and I wanted to benchmark nuts.wad on it!
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
I personally can't wait until Fox or CNN reports this, launching into a very dumbed-down, 20 second summary of the past 80 years of physics. Cover your eyes, Jimmy...
Who could possibly need 17 exabytes of ram?
I'm pretty sure within five years someone will come up with a use for it.
Just for the sake of novelty zetta (10x21) and yotta (10x24) come next.
antimatter?
What is enigmatic about adding two vectors in a vector space? I can't stand the way popular science press insist on making bizarre statements about the most trivial mathematics and science in an attempt to make it more interesting. States in a quantum computer are elements of a vector space. You learn what vector spaces are in the first year of an undergraduate course in mathematics. This is baby stuff. It's hard to realise physically but the underlying ideas are easy. This endless mystification is getting very annoying. Among other things it generates endless verbiage on
-- SIGFPE
At the end of every (?) episode of Quantum Leap, Sam (Scott Bakula) (and that holographic dude, once or twice) would say "Oh, boy" once he jumped into a new body and realized his new predicament.
:-(
Can't believe the mods missed it.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
How can you take that magazine seriously when they make statements like these?
"Working with individual ions is key to building powerful computing machines that will exploit quantum physics -- instead of transistors
Transistors exploit quantum physics! Transistors work because of the laws of QM - they were designed after the QM describing solid state objects was formlated. The classical analog is vacuum tubes.
Actually, I'd say that in 1946 (yes, 60 years ago) Murray Leinster essentially predicted the internet. Although he didn't predict how it worked, he certainly predicted computers in the home searching centralized data repositories. Here's an excerpt from "A Logic Named Joe."
Not too far off the mark for 1946.
Support SETI@home
His point is, even if you need over 17 GBs of RAM, it'd be far more efficient to just split up that RAM among multiple 64-bit processors. I mean, by the time we have 17 exabytes of RAM, they're will probably 1000 core 64-bit processors. ;)
Software is like sex. It's better when it's free. -Linus Torvalds
Ah I'm happy UM my Alma Mater. It's definetly a top notch research school.
We have a name for this: 16 exabytes!
The wikipedia article on 128 bit processing points out that it's probably not efficient for a single 128 bit processor to have over 17 billion gig of ram to itself anyway -- it'd probably make far more sense to split the ram up between several 64 bit processors instead.
So how would you address ram on a different processor? Ok, this is so far into the future, that anyones guess is valid, but a 128 bit address space isn't too silly.
Assuming we use some form of nano-storage with an atom per bit, 2^64 bytes needs storage space measured in cubic mm. 2^128 bytes needs storage space measured in cubic km.
2^256 bytes needs storage space measured in cubic deci-parsecs. This is still conceivable for a science fiction scenario, and would be the preferred memory addressing size for a dyson-sphere (or cluster of dyson-spheres, with still a bit of room for virtual memory). A 512 bit address space starts to get pretty unrealistic though, at least if you need it for memory addressing reasons...
But I digress. The point is that it's still very conceivable that future advances in nanotechnology will bring cheap nanoscale-memory, where a 64-bit address-space is still too small. A 128-bit address space ought to be enough for everybody though (at least on a conceivable time-scale).
Here's the peer-reviewed paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0601052
Could it be that the head coach of the football team is going to be replaced by a quantum computer because the team can't finish in the Top 25, let alone beat Ohio State?
I seem to recall that an article was posted on /. a few months ago about this as found here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/ 07/1241216
And here is the company's webpage: http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page5.html
See! Proof that Quantum-Optical computing has already been done!
Ok, so maybe this would be the first non-vaporware quantum chip...
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
I blogged this a solid month ago after posting it on metafilter.
including such tidbits as this one.
"This is very interesting and I don't want to diminish what this group has accomplished, but there is still a long way to go before we have a scaleable quantum computer.
The biggest problem, as I understand it, is not in our ability to mass produce quantum computing systems. It is creating multi-qubit entangled systems. In quantum computing, 2 8-qubit registers is not the equivalent to 1 16-cubit register, which is much harder to produce.
There was a recent FPP which linked to a number of articles, including one by a physicist who predicted that the largest qubit system allowed by the laws of nature was around 400 qubits. I don't agree with him, but we are certainly a long way from producing "usefully complex" quantum computers."
by justkevin
Thanks for the clarification, your definition sounds more accurate. TFA linked the word qubit to this definition:
Unlike binary a qubit is capable of representing a 0, 1, or both 0 and 1 bit.
Either way, 3 states or many many many states, it still doesn't seem accurate to claim each additional qubit will "double" the computing power.
Keep in mind a 64 bit processor can address 17 billion gig of ram. I think that should be "Gub." 1 billion bytes is a gigabyte, but 2^30 bytes is more properly referred to as a gubibyte; and last time I checked ram was measured in base 2 rather than the easier to remember SI units. If they choose to use the indeterminate spin as a "2" they may need to add a third prefix for base 3. He, He, He. This is still news for nerds, right?
Actually, the quantum computer version of DOOM will be at Best Buy within a couple on months.
Unfortunatley, there will be at least an hour of cut scenes taken straight from the movie. And The Rock insisted that no one be allowed to bypass them.
These are the three best known quantum algorithms.
-- SIGFPE
Cheap power supply?
Synergy is your friend
"The cadmium atom that has lost an electron becomes a negatively charged ion" ^from the article. I think that if it loses an electron it becomes a _positive_ ion. Eh?
Help! I'm being repressed!
http://iontrap.physics.lsa.umich.edu/publications/ archive/naturephys_2005_stick_GaAs.pdf
I thought by now, technology, and the power of computing would double in size, and run only half as fast?
So that Doctor was lying?
"Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
By far the easiest description of Qubits I've read to date. You sir, deserve mod points.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Last I checked, when an atom loses an electron it becomes a positively charged atom. Physics certainly has progressed since I was in college.
In a related story, after being told that U Mich now has quantum microchips working, Steve Jobs was heard saying, "Crap! FUCK! We just finished switching to Intel chips, and now THIS happens?! Now we're going to have to, I mean this will make us, I mean... DAMMIT! DAMN. IT. Stupid fucking processors -- we should've just stayed with m68k. I mean, what's the point?"
Will electromagnetic pulses affect quantum computers?
Neutiquam erro
quantum systems will be much more efficient at rock-solid cryptography and mass database searches than running the latest version of Doom.
Not even quantum computing is fast enough for Doom 3, eh?
They won't be able to crack my one-time pad.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
We won't be seeing any notebooks or handhelds with quantum chips in the near future.
Odd... I looked in my old laptop, and on my Quantum HDD is a chip marked "Quantum"
Woohoo! I've got leading edge technology.... and I didn't even realize it...Place nail here >+
Yea, what happened with them? They were supposedly at that technology expo in Las Vegas...I wonder what happened. Anyone know?
What's the big deal? Q*berts have been sround since 1982!
The perfect way to boost your karma: *takes a deep breath, ready to duck and run at the same time (pardon the pun)* How does that affect linux?
Do note that quantum computers are *not* general purpose computers. There are a small finite number of known algorithms that can be run on them. Hopefully this list will grow with time, but the concept of running, say, an OS on a quantum computer is just silly.
;)
Quantum chips may eventually be found in regular computers, but they will only be addressable for specific tasks. In a way, it's like an uberfast bios - you "flash" it with a valid "program" from a small list, and then it can run that specific program (amazingly fast).
When I first read the article, I was thinking that it was going to be a Kane quantum computer because they mentioned a "chip" (Kane quantum computers are based on phosphorus ions on a silicon wafer). This looks instead like a trapped ion quantum computer. I thought that ion trap quantum computers tended to have problems with short decoherence times that led to needing enough error correction that you lose most of your qubits, making them less valuable as a computing device. Kane quantum computers have decoherence times, if wikipedia is correct, of around 1e19 seconds
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
I looked for the booth at CES but it appeared to be a nonexistant number... beyond the numbering of anything else in the convention center. However, Gizmodo claimed to have found it and that the product was real. Looks like a CompactFlash card with some pins glued onto it, but hey, that's just me.
linky
filmcritic.com - Movie reviews on Internet time
How many trees do these quantum chips require?
My kid has a Quantum LeapPad.
It sits on her lap just fine!
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
"if wikipedia is correct"
that's a big if
Party knows where you are AND where you are going..
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Its' important concept to remember in "desktop" processor choices'. If you go 64 bit, iA64 or EMT64 are not same. Amd uses iA64 i stands for Intel, as it works as well as iA32 SO ITS BOTH 32 BIT & 64 BIT COMPATIBLE. However, iA64 is 48 bitwidth, while EMT64 is only 40 bitwidth & IS Intels "emulated" 64 bit processor ("EMULATED" simply means its not as much as iA64, yet runs same software as iA64 can. So AMD does more per clock with wider bitwidth, yet IBM, not to be outdone by just "anyone", is going to desktop standard that is even larger in bitwidth, it is rumoured to be 52? bitwidth. Why not 64 bitwidth, well, lots o' stuff has to be engineered first, one step at time, filling in how those bitwidths are used. By stepping up slowly most efficent useage of each bit is ensured (as well as being able to run 32 bit or 64 bit software with iA64), also "identifier" bits on both ends of each bit string take up remander of available space,units of 4 bitwidth are common end(s) identifier length, yet its too much in "unknown" zone to state exactly what IBM will do,just simple math says Intel 12bit bitwidth ends, AMD 8 bit biteidth bit ends, IBM 6 bit or 4 bit bitwidth ends.32 bit computing (iA32) uses 4 bit bitwidth ends.Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D..
WINDOWS XP Service Pack -X- 396 mb. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTO
Sooner or later, someone had to have posted this:n tumleap.mp3
http://www.tvclassic.net/programs/quantumleap/qua
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Oppsie- Theres no such thing as 6 bit identifier bit in home desktop consumer computing (in general), they all come in units of 4 bit bitwidth ends units. I seldom think about this & I knew theres' some "trick" I was missing while I typed above post & there is. I.B.M. is using 8 bit bitwidth in opening statement, while only 4 bit bitwidth in closing statment. This is simple, as I stated iA32 uses only 4 bit bitwidth ends, so EMT64 nor iA64 can use 4 bit opening statement or your computer processor would turn itself into iA32 mode or at least be confused & start hacking bit strings up, it needs to know that software is compatable with processor internal archetecture, so bits going thru Intel have 3 4bit bitwidth statements in opening statement or it just won't fly, while AMD needs only 2 4 bit bitwidth in opening statement & same amount as opening is true for closing of each. While IBM uses same 2 4bit bitwidth opening statement as AMD, IBM knows that 1 4bit bitwidth is enough to close statement as thats all iA32 has. Once statement of closing goes thru comparrisson unit, string activeity stops until new opening statement arrives. It takes someone smarter than INTEL or AMD to figure that out? No, they all collude to do software in their own archetectured processor that meets reputation of each company. INTEL has faster clock rate and/or multiplier so althought bit string is smaller, more bits strings go thru per second than AMD. Intel uses extreme redundancy (parrallism)to hack thru almost any problem, so error due to high speed are just gone over again until correct output is realized. Amd crafts movement thru processor better, so that wider bitwidth allows same amount of bit processing per second to occur, yet at slower coreXmulitplier rate.That may be where AMD is weak, as gamecards at top end go twice as fast with 50% more transistors. More tranistors means more power software can express, yet at slower final rate per clock cycle. Can AMD "leap" to higher frequencies while doing more computing per string & increase tranistor count to tomorrows desktop demands, which simply means move workstation processing to desktop? Well, opteron is workstation processor & it has great reviews, yet if you look at actual clock speed, it is often quite low(due to large cache that means lots more tranistors to control multi tasking aspect of workstation)), so other factors, such as 65 nm (lets think how about "quntum" size tranistor gates,just for extremeness. Faster memory with on board controller may keep AMD on top for quite sometime. Until IBM gets "cell" processor into supercomputer market, then IBM may kick some real booty again in #1 position in consumer market. Ah SO SORRY ABOUT THAT 6 BIT basicly "ALBATROSSE" QUIP IN PREVIOUS POST (although who really knows),I BELIEVE THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING IN iA32/iA64 nor EMT64, maybe in "albatrose" processsors like 586 that needs special encoding & that normally arn't even used except in most secure areas. Yet can do unusual decoding to move into & out of 486 to display for those terminals or internet online stuff that "banks" & other highly secured computers may have output use as some type of specialty identifier within "secured" level of archetecture,so its own software would be prevelant or only one, other common software or processor/translator outputs have to go to another processor or controller(or core?)that uses ethier 4 or 6 bit seperately within same enviorment of multi bit bitwidth multiples with each end same or unique.Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
WINDOWS XP Service Pack -X- 396 mb. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTO
an "64-bit processor" actually has integers larger than 64 bits. Even 32-bit processors have integers larger than 64 bits (e.g. multimedia instructions on Pentium chips). The "64" part refers to the memory addressing range, not to the integer range.
because if you can see them, you won't know if they are actually working.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
This Quantum laptop will let me see every porn pic on the net simultaneously, right?
Adventure City Tours
Is it just me or should it say "the cadmium atom loses an electron, becoming a POSITIVE ion"?
Debit and credit double-entry bookkeeping are so second millennium, that on the St Lawrence topic I commented that Google aren't so much interested in AI itself, rather, the concept of "Quantum Bookkeeping" will become the competitive driving force between Google and Microsoft and may well be the reason behind the rumor that Bill Clinton will replace the chair thrower. I think I know how such a chip, as designed here, could be placed around the world and 'seeded' with the tensors of the quantum bookkeepers, to produce orgone for some people or real non-delusional hydrogen fuel, a la the Joe Cell, for others -- nanotechnology, etc.
Argumentum ad Probabilitum
come on people, 200+ comments on slashdot and nobody complains about this trivial mistake?
______________________________________________
sigamajig...
Now all they need is a micro beer to go with the micro chip. I wonder if they are working on a micro pretzel?
I was about to post on the very same thing!
QUOTE:
"The cadmium atom that has lost an electron becomes a negatively charged ion, which can then be controlled with an electrical field," said Daniel Stick, a doctoral student in the University of Michigan's physics department who participated in the work.
And he's a doctoral student? Losing 1 negative charge makes the atom negative? Huh?,br> Don't think I'll be putting too much faith in this particular computer.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
I know you are serious, and have reasonable calculations, but I can't stop thinking about "64KB ought to be enough for everybody".
Yet, I don't think we'll have kiloparsecs wide computers. But who knows if we'll be able to build some memmory smaller than atoms.
Rethinking email
"16 Exabytes should be enough for anybody"
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Will your notebook or desktop PC someday sport quantum innards? It's unlikely, at least in the immediate future. Researchers believe quantum systems will be much more efficient at rock-solid cryptography and mass database searches than running the latest version of Doom.
Yeah, because nobody has any use for rock solid cryptography on a notebook or desktop PC... Oh, wait.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
After every major new feature being pulled from each new windows os before it hits the shelves this is flamebait??!!??
yeah -- after posting I remembered the quantum entaglement thing and it's applications for cryptology. To implement a DRM solution arround it, would require all DRM devices to be entangled with the master's electrons?!? Not practical for a mass distributed document. In fact, is it even possible for that application?
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso