content: Is it weird that I don't believe a single word in this?  It is weird that you would have such a strong bias in a field you obviously have no familiarity with.  This article is pretty well researched and I don't see any major problems with it. QC is a legitimate area of research.  There is little to say that we shouldn't be able to build one, and there is a lot of promising work.  It may turn out though that it is impractical, and while that might suck, discovering this might actually lead to a deeper understanding of the computational limits of physical reality. It is not at all on par with perpetual motion which is known to directly break the laws of physics. This article is actually quite good compared to most reporting on QC.  This is an overstatement, though:  [QC] now widely expected to work within five to 30 years  There is a bit of controversy around QC in that a private company called D-Wave was making overblown claims.  But they seem to have settled down a bit and are now playing a more pragmatic strategy. Most media coverage of QC claims that they can do exponentially many computations in parallel (making it sound like BQP ⊇ NP), while this is patently false.  Shor's algorithm is the best known speedup for general problems in NP.  Also lattices sound like extremely ordered and predictable constructs.  This is pretty moronic.  You can't judge mathematical concepts by their names, or one or two sentences designed to give an image of reference to laypeople.  And anyways, math deals with proofs, and so armchair opinions are absolutely meaningless.  Come back when you have a PhD in Computer Science.