Print 65 comment(s) - last by 10bpc.. on Oct 19 at 4:42 PM

  (Source: Warner Bros.)
$10M USD quantum computer outdoes entire data centers, according to Google

Google Inc. (GOOG) owns a dominant position in the search and search advertising markets.  It owns an even more dominant position in the mobile operating system space and it makes one of the most used email services.  And its Linux PC operating system -- Chrome OS -- has seen an explosion of sales and interest.

I. Google Enters the Quantum Age

So when Google in 2009 announced that it was teaming up with Canadian firm D-Wave Systems, Inc. -- the first commercial seller of quantum computing hardware -- and The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) -- which verified D-Wave had a true quantum computer -- many took note.

But since then Google's been relatively silent on the collaboration, leaving some to wonder if it'd given up on quantum computing.  But in May the trio announced the Google Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab.  And now a new short film set to debut at the Imagine Science Films Festival at Google New York is ready to deliver yet another blow to skepticism on the efforts.

A recent August tour of the Quantum AI Lab gave us our first glimpse of the actual D-Wave system in action.  

A black box, otherwise unassuming but for the brightly lit "D-Wave" text emblazoned on the side, the quantum computer operates at extremely cold temperatures thanks to helium cooling.  The video shows a typical operating temperature of 13.8 millikelvin (mK).  By contrast the coldest naturally occurring temperature in space is around 1 K, while the average space temperature is around 2.7 K -- almost 200 times the temperature inside the quantum computer.

Inside is a computer based on D-Wave's proprietary quantum chips.  Here's a video detailing D-Wave's 128 qubit hardware technology:

A D-Wave 2 quantum computer like Google's has 4 128s qubit ("quantum bit") chips, for 512 total qubits of algorithmic capacity.  

II. Optimizing Android

Some of Google's work uses quantum adiabatic algorithms discovered by Edward Farhi and collaborators at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).  Google showed applications of those algorithms off in 2009 when it used the D-Wave computer to learn visual descriptions of objects locating them with record speed in images previous unseen to the quantum computer.

D-Wave chips
D-Wave is the first company to commercially produce quantum computing hardware.
[Image Source: D-Wave]

The brains at Google, NASA, and D-Wave admit that the hardest challenge is knowing what to ask, in part due to the fact that we're still learning what quantum computers can do.

Quantum computers were thought to be inferior to traditional computers at solving binary or arbitrary node trees (sometimes known as game trees) until Northeastern Univ. Professor Sam Gutmann and MIT's Professor Farhi showed otherwise.  Now quantum algorithms are fast becoming the best tool to solve this class of problems, having also shown themselves amenable to solving binary trees (e.g. the set of all possible moves from a position, the set of all possible moves from those positions and so on) in O(N^(1/2)) time and some more complex cases O(N^(1/2)*log N) time -- much better than the best traditional algorithm (O(N^.753) in the binary case).
Binary game tree
Quantum computers can now solve binary trees faster than traditional ones. [Image Source: Scott Aaronsen]

Comments NASA's Eleanor Rieffel in the new short film, "We don't know what the best questions are to ask that computer.  That's exactly what we're trying to understand."

D-Wave 2
The D-Wave hardware reportedly set Google back an estimate $10M USD. [Image Source: D-Wave]

The clues dropped by Google in the film and elsewhere hint that the most promising application of the Quantum computers may be in algorithm development and in filtering data sets that are too noisy for normal computers to handle.  The company wrote in May:

We’ve already developed some quantum machine learning algorithms. One produces very compact, efficient recognizers -- very useful when you’re short on power, as on a mobile device. Another can handle highly polluted training data, where a high percentage of the examples are mislabeled, as they often are in the real world. And we’ve learned some useful principles: e.g., you get the best results not with pure quantum computing, but by mixing quantum and classical computing.

Google has created optimized power-efficient algorithms for Android, using its quantum computer.

A new test of the Quantum AI lab that Google is working on is to develop algorithms to differentiate between intentional winks and natural blinking, so that blinks can be used to navigate the Glass Explorer wearable computer -- a glasses-form factor wearable that runs a variant of Google's Android operating system.

In April a redittor found snippets of code in Glass Explorer's open source, which hinted at an algorithm to detect blinks.  Mike DiGiovanni the lead developer at Roundarch Isobar in May showed off a hack that allowed developers to use the wink API in their apps -- however it proved relatively inaccurate, requiring exaggerated winks, and often mistaking winks for blinks.  Google is leaving the algorithm off, but it hopes to soon be able to drop in a replacement that the quantum computer's been devising.

Glass Explorer
Google has its eye on Glass Explorer blink detection optimization. [Image Source: TechRadar]

Google says it spent $10M USD in total on the exotic setup -- but that money appears well worth it, as Google says that the quantum computer has generated algorithms faster than entire datacenters it had previously put to the task.  In the future Google wants to use its quantum computers not only to optimize its algorithms, but as a complement to its traditional processing backend, to accelerate some special kinds of searches.

Oh, and one last thing to mention -- Google says it has further evidence that D-Wave's computers are operating on true quantum entanglement, not some lesser equivalent as some doubters speculated -- so take that, haters. 

Sources: Google on YouTube, The Verge

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So lame
By Spuke on 10/12/2013 6:43:17 PM , Rating: 5
Someone actually has a REAL quantum computer but instead of a discussion about that outlandish feat of technology, the only thing you guys can come up with is rehashed BS about Android fragmentation and UI add-ons. This place USED to be full of geeks, now it's just full of idiot extremists.

RE: So lame
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2013 7:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Its really mind boggling. Do these people even understand what an achievement we're talking here?

RE: So lame
By rsmech on 10/12/2013 8:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
So your change in attitude is only because it's Google discussion or is this real? Did hell freeze over?

RE: So lame
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2013 10:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'll bite, exactly what change in attitude. We're talking quantum computing, this is like the holy grail!

RE: So lame
By rsmech on 10/13/2013 12:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with both of you that this is big and Google is great at forward thinking. There is nothing to bit. This just isn't your typical post.

RE: So lame
By half_duplex on 10/14/2013 8:17:21 AM , Rating: 1
No it's not. They ported a few back propagated nets to a highly inefficient "quantum computer". And the fact that they note that it's helped to optimize their phone OS makes the story even less credible. They could have done the same on any computer.

Really, there's nothing to see here.

RE: So lame
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2013 9:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
"quantum computer"

This is a true quantum computer, not sure why you're using quotations here. Being skeptical is fine, being ignorant in the face of facts are not.

They could have done the same on any computer.

Did you even read the article? The D-Wave quantum computer is doing the job of an entire datacenter faster and more efficient. That doesn't sound like "any" computer I've ever heard of before.

RE: So lame
By Lifted on 10/14/2013 2:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
This is a true quantum computer , not sure why you're using quotations here. Being skeptical is fine, being ignorant in the face of facts are not.

Many academics are still skeptical about that, if not outright believe it's false, so nobody should be calling this a fact, yet.

Did you even read the article? The D-Wave quantum computer is doing the job of an entire datacenter faster and more efficient. That doesn't sound like "any" computer I've ever heard of before.

Referencing a DailyTech article as your sole piece of evidence that this is a true quantum computer isn't helping your argument.

RE: So lame
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2013 3:56:01 PM , Rating: 3
And instead of easily disproving it, you launch into hyperbole and insulting the establishment who's services you are using yourself...

RE: So lame
By Lifted on 10/15/2013 5:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Being skeptical is fine, being ignorant in the face of facts are not.
What facts? You have no facts to back up your claim of
This is a true quantum computer

other than an article written by somebody who still, after years upon years of "reporting", can't manage to comprehend nor summarize a quarterly financial statement, and you are here taking his poorly-researched word as fact on the topic of Quantum Physics. Put the Kool-Aid down!

As to insulting this establishment, the only reason I clicked on this article (from AnandTech as I would never come here directly) is because I knew Jason Mick reporting on Quantum Physics would be pure comedy. Low and behold...

RE: So lame
By troysavary on 10/15/2013 6:46:55 AM , Rating: 1
Did YOU even read the article. No where did they say it could do the job of an entire data center. They said at that one particular task it was faster than a datacenter. But if they tried to use it for, let's say, serving data, it wouldn't come close.

The fact that they openly state they really don't know what to do with a quantum computer yet and research is going on to find out what tasks it is good at would tell an even remotely competent person that this will not be replacing traditional computers any time soon.

RE: So lame
By exeedorbit on 10/15/2013 12:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
But if they tried to use it for, let's say, serving data, it wouldn't come close.

Where did it say that, exactly?

The fact that they openly state they really don't know what to do with a quantum computer yet and research is going on to find out what tasks it is good at would tell an even remotely competent person that this will not be replacing traditional computers any time soon.

Nobody said that they would be replacing computers anytime soon. You're looking at this completely the wrong way. This opens up so many possibilities computationally, as soon as they figure out how to harness the capacity of these computers. They operate in a different language, and naturally, have to be figured out before they can cap into its true power.

RE: So lame
By ShieTar on 10/14/2013 10:13:33 AM , Rating: 3
We achieved a commercial implementation of a concept that was shown to be working in a lab back in 2000. We are also not talking about a revolutionary product right now, this is a Model 2, the Model 1 was already bought by Lockheed Martin back in 2011.

So, since nobody interested in the field had any doubt whatsoever that this system could be built since 13 years, you will understand that we do not get overly excited by the fact that Google bought and used one now?

RE: So lame
By SAN-Man on 10/14/2013 11:16:48 AM , Rating: 2
No... this place is a tabloid, well, I can't even call it that. It's a glorified blog.

Without AnandTech's initial induction of readers close to 10 years ago, this place would have never gotten off the ground.

If you tried to start this site today with the content they deliver, I doubt it would be successful.

RE: So lame
By wordsworm on 10/12/2013 8:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
You haven't been here as long as most of the idiot extremists who post here.

RE: So lame
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/12/2013 8:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
If you expect to find intelligent analysis and discussion of scientific discovery and technological breakthroughs on this website, I would say, at a minimum, you are barking up the wrong tree :)

RE: So lame
By EricMartello on 10/12/2013 10:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
This is a great achievement; it's really the first major advance in computing since the transistor became commercially viable, mass market.

Our tech has largely been stagnant since the 1960s, most of it WWII era stuff that has been refined and improved upon so for us to have a working quantum computer may propel us into a new kind of space age.

And since we're all "extremists" here, I'd just like to point out that capitalism and free enterprise led to what may be the first non-theoretical quantum computer - it was not done by government.

RE: So lame
By MadMan007 on 10/13/2013 12:13:05 AM , Rating: 2

You may want to read D-Wave's wikipedia page it seems that it's more like a collaboration of government and the private sector.

RE: So lame
By EricMartello on 10/13/13, Rating: 0
RE: So lame
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/2013 9:12:11 AM , Rating: 1
capitalism works , and it is individuals who make great things happen - not govt .

"If you've got a quantum computer, you didn't build that!"

RE: So lame
By Mint on 10/13/13, Rating: 0
RE: So lame
By Reclaimer77 on 10/13/13, Rating: 0
RE: So lame
By Schrag4 on 10/14/2013 5:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
If you've got a quantum computer, you didn't build that!

Oh come on, you don't think that's even a little funny? Lighten up, Francis.

RE: So lame
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2013 10:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
I did :)

RE: So lame
By jimbojimbo on 10/14/2013 10:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
it is individuals who make great things happen - not govt .
Well, first off individuals make up the government. It's not like some giant foreign entity. By the way do you know how the internet came about? Ever hear of ARPANET? When we say the government was involved in its creation you must be thinking we're saying that Gore created it or something.

RE: So lame
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2013 3:26:09 PM , Rating: 1
Internet is used as slang for World Wide Web, but there is a difference.

The Government didn't build the 'web. The Government couldn't have even for seen such an advancement in the free sharing of information and commerce by individuals.

RE: So lame
By hartleyb on 10/15/2013 9:18:57 AM , Rating: 3
Your statement is both true and false...the government had a big hand in building the current internet, as well as it's having a huge part in building the next version of the internet. The government funded the initial backbones that power the internet as part of a government, education, and medical collaberation tool which eventually with the help of the private sector grew into the internet. The Internet ground roots come from BBS's and the idea that you could connect/link multiple BBS's together is basically how the internet started. At first the internet was a dial in to a bunch of loosly coupled BBS's that where maintained by universities and the government and from there it grew to have backbones, servers, etc.....

RE: So lame
By EricMartello on 10/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: So lame
By ShieTar on 10/14/2013 10:26:40 AM , Rating: 2
And since we're all "extremists" here, I'd just like to point out that capitalism and free enterprise led to what may be the first non-theoretical quantum computer - it was not done by government.

Sorry, nope. It is merely a commercial version of the laboratory setup existing at MIT, which has been described to work back in the year 2000.

We have seen that capitalism without government support will just implode back in the 1920s, and seen it again in late 2007. And everybody following the current crowd-sourcing movement can see that free markets no longer need capitalism to work (i.e. no investors, no loans, no interest paid, just money for work) due to the possibilities of modern communication.

RE: So lame
By troysavary on 10/15/2013 6:50:20 AM , Rating: 3
The implosions of both 1920 and 2007 were caused by, not mitigated by, government intervention.

RE: So lame
By Flunk on 10/13/2013 11:40:40 AM , Rating: 3
Been around since 2008 if you were paying attention.

RE: So lame
By troysavary on 10/14/2013 6:30:40 AM , Rating: 2
If they had mentioned in the article what "revolutionary" work Google was doing with quantum computing rather than make the meat of the article about how Google was optimizing Android, you might have a point. But since was basically an Android article with a mention of quantum computing, comments about how only Android needs a quantum computer to make it work well are relevant.

RE: So lame
By MozeeToby on 10/14/2013 10:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
Technically, what they have is a quantum annealer which is not quite the same thing. For instance, you couldn't use this setup to find the prime factors of a very large number (which is the hallmark test of a quantum computer). Basically, what you have is a system that uses some quantum effects to optimize a solution but that's a long way from a general purpose quantum computer. D-Wave's use of the term has repeatedly gotten them in hot water with researchers and they themselves no longer call it a quantum computer.

RE: So lame
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/14/2013 12:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
You sure? Right from their site....

At D-Wave, we build quantum computers. The laws of quantum physics, which govern the microscopic world, allow bits of matter to be in two states simultaneously. All modern-day computing relies on the ultra-fast manipulation of billions of bits of information. Quantum computing combines these two ideas, allowing us to put bits of information into their 0 and 1 states at the same time. This process allows quantum computers to consider and manipulate all combinations of bits simultaneously, making quantum computation powerful and fast.

RE: So lame
By MozeeToby on 10/14/2013 3:28:07 PM , Rating: 2

This is not the first time their system has been in the news. It's interesting, it's exciting, it is not a fully capable quantum computer. Their implementation is not fully programmable, in fact it can only solve a specific set of problems specifically optimization problems. By the sound of it, Google is using it to optimize the design of some of their new audio co-processors like the ones used to make "OK Google Now" activate a Moto X without draining the battery.

RE: So lame
By Jaybus on 10/15/2013 2:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
The theoretical "universal quantum computer" or "quantum Turing Machine" was defined by David Deutsch in 1985, based on a refinement of Richard Feynman's earlier theoretical "universal quantum simulator", which he developed in proving that a classical Universal Turing Machine could not be used to simulate quantum phenomena. By these definitions, it can certainly be argued that D-Wave's machine is not a universal quantum computer in the same sense that an early electronic calculator was not a universal classical computer. Nevertheless, the electronic calculator certainly served a useful purpose. In much the same sense, D-Wave's quantum device can be thought of as a useful quantum calculator.

By GulWestfale on 10/12/13, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By qkool on 10/12/2013 11:41:29 AM , Rating: 5
I would say the government would still be a bottleneck.

RE: wow
By SpartanJet on 10/12/2013 12:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
plus snoop through your web and emails to deliver Ads to you at quantum speeds!

RE: wow
By GotThumbs on 10/12/13, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By SpartanJet on 10/12/13, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By rsmech on 10/12/2013 3:01:24 PM , Rating: 4
I agree with the idea of what you're saying there is a problem with it. Almost anyone on this site should know and understand what they are getting with Android or chrome OS. We are the minority, the majority buy because everyone else is or they like the adds. How do you think an Android TV add would look if they had disclosure like drug adds.

Everything would be as it is than in fast lawyer speak: your phone may become less secure if your carrier doesn't give updates. Your emails will be scanned. Google will send adds based on these scans. Google will track your browsing habits and will send adds based on this tracking. We will track your GPS location. We will archive for a short time all this information as well as photos, web searches, contacts and other information we deem relevant and will only share this information with those who pay us for it. We will not keep your information for extended periods of time, that is tasked to the NSA who may frequently by court order obtain this information but we can't tell you. If this happens we are not liable for the massive amounts of information we turn over to the government, information you willingly would not disclose on your own. You will not have access to the profile we are building on you or the profile the NSA may build from our data collected on you by using our products. In short since our business models based off of giving you "free" services you hereby give us release from all responsibility from all the data we collect while you use our "free" services. You devices powered by Google therefore are not private, this includes but not limited to: Google web browser, Android powered devices such as smart phones and tablets, Chrome Books or any Google powered PC, Gmail, Google docs., YouTube. Or any and all Google services. Enjoy your free products from Google.

Those of us on this site know this and that it applies to other companies and services also. I also know those of us here can work around many of these issues. But we are a minority. If Google adds and other had disclosure like drug adds the mobile industry would probably look a little different. It's marketing of the notion "ignorance is bliss." We keep them ignorant and we win and they think they win.

So please no responses about you can just do this or that to bypass things. You are not the masses this post is implying.

RE: wow
By Tony Swash on 10/12/2013 3:31:03 PM , Rating: 1
Hey, SpartanJet:

Here's a simple and FREE solution to your concern/issue.

Don't use any of Google's FREE services/products.

That doesn't work because if anyone you know use Gmail then Google will scan your incoming emails to them even if you yourself don't use Gmail.

RE: wow
By stm1185 on 10/12/2013 4:39:20 PM , Rating: 1
They need to get to optimizing then. Target Androids poor power efficiency, touch responsiveness, and fragmented design.

Match iOS on power usage and touch latency, WP on responsiveness, then make Android so that Skins sit above and can be easily replaced by the end user, and no longer slow down the upgrade cycle.

Shouldn't have to wait on 4.4 because Sense and Touchwiz need updating. Google should be able to push it out and give the end user a choice!

RE: wow
By douchefree on 10/12/2013 8:14:29 PM , Rating: 1
Android already "matches" WP responsiveness according to a fairly recent test.

RE: wow
By Rukkian on 10/14/2013 11:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
Did I miss something? What does this have to do with what you are replying to? Tony was mentioning GMail scanning, and you start talking about optimizing speed of Android.

As for Gmail scanning, unless you are sending messages with at least 128bit encryption, they can be looked at. Email is not private, and pretty much any company does some sort of scanning, whether that is for spam filtering, ads or whatever does not matter - it is all scanned in some form or another.

RE: wow
By Reclaimer77 on 10/14/2013 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
I find it curious how nobody minds their email contents being scanned for spam or malware. But if someone scans them for the purpose of making a profit? Oh hell no, then they get indignant.

RE: wow
By troysavary on 10/15/2013 6:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
I hate having my email scanned for spam too. I want to be the one who decides if it is spam, not my email provider. Let me scan it at my end and filter spam to the trash rather than deciding it is spam for me and not delivering it.

RE: wow
By Aloonatic on 10/13/2013 2:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a simple and FREE solution to your concern/issue.
Not sure about your free solution:
Build your own
You work for free, and have access to the tools, hardware and software needed at zero cost?
or purchase someone else's that charges you a fee and does zero else for income to support its operations.
Purchase someone else's work... for free?

Also, what are the alternatives to using Google's, Yahoo's, MS's or even Apples' "free" services? It seems that everyone is at it these days. Even if you pay for e-mail, a browser or phone OS do you think that they would not still be gathering all that precious data and that the NSA, GCHQ etc would not still be doing all that they can to get access to it all?

The only real "twits" that I can see are those that do not realise that peons like us are not, never have been, and never will be anything but a herd of beasts to be used and controlled by the elites however they see fit, no matter what system of government there is, from tribal chief to a president of a republic.

RE: wow
By tamalero on 10/13/2013 2:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
which is almost impossible, as most of the mayor services are everywhere.
its either google, or bing.. and both have their tracking systems.. then we have facebook which is embedded in almost everything.. same with twitter and blogger (thru linking services like disquss)

RE: wow
By Flunk on 10/13/2013 11:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
No, stealing all your personal information is a trivial operation for normal digital computers. This device is more important to solving algorithmic problems and optimizing code. It's not like they need to crack your passwords or anything, they already have the keys to the kingdom in that regard.

Google can certainly afford the brilliant people they need to get the most out of this, it will be interesting to see what they do with it.

Google has so much fun with their money...
By bupkus on 10/12/2013 6:34:54 PM , Rating: 5
whereas Apple is sitting on a huge pile of money like Scrooge McDuck, rolling in the cash and throwing it up in the air to get an iShower.

By surt on 10/13/2013 6:24:19 PM , Rating: 1
And thanks to the new golden iphone, I think we can conclude that it is an iGolden Shower.

RE: Google has so much fun with their money...
By Tony Swash on 10/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: Google has so much fun with their money...
By rsmech on 10/13/2013 10:41:46 PM , Rating: 3
Apple doesn't get cash they get executive decisions from their government.

By Tony Swash on 10/14/2013 7:18:35 AM , Rating: 1
Apple doesn't get cash they get executive decisions from their government.

Such as?

RE: Google has so much fun with their money...
By Rukkian on 10/14/13, Rating: 0
By Tony Swash on 10/14/2013 11:22:51 AM , Rating: 1
WTF does any of that have to do with what you are responding to? There was no mention of Samsung in the post you replied to and no mention of Google in your post. I know in your world, anything that isn't apple is just one big black hole, but really?

At least find a semi-relevent Apple jerk fest to copy from next time.

Breath. Calm down. Then think. It's not difficult. Even for you. Someone made a comment about Apple's cash reserves implying it was somehow illegitimate or illogical to have that much cash. The article I quoted from put forward a perspective on strategic considerations behind Apple's cash holdings I had not come across before and which was interesting. You may find that perspective not very interesting or fallacious but even a moron should be able to see the discursive link back to the original comment. If you can't seek help.

By Hilariousity on 10/13/2013 6:28:20 AM , Rating: 3
Hey Brain! What are we doing tonight?

RE: Pinky
By Camikazi on 10/14/2013 9:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
Same thing we do every night Pinky, try and optimize Android!

RE: Pinky
By troysavary on 10/15/2013 6:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
And apparently, they are as successful at that as they were at taking over the world.

RE: Pinky
By 10bpc on 10/19/2013 4:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
They really needed that ; it took 2 years to fix the 15 seconds fast in Android (bug 5485 : leap second offset of GPS vs UTC), even though Samsung had their own workaround.
They better patent pocket calls before Apple does, unless quantum computing can figure how to scan one's face or see ambient light before making any call. Carriers might not be happy with less minutes, but quantum computing might find a solution as well...

By MadMan007 on 10/12/2013 6:52:12 PM , Rating: 5
Not sure if quantum computer real, or not real....or both at the same time.

RE: hmm
By geekman1024 on 10/14/2013 2:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
That would be Schrödinger's Quantum Computing.

By Etern205 on 10/15/2013 6:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
I always envisioned that quantum computers runs on processor that's some transparent tube with micro glowing fusion core in it. And was hoping one day to get one of my own at Newegg or something. Too bad, my vision is not the same as reality.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki