When the entry was added, I didn't say anything (there is usually nothing to be gained by arguing with Radar directly), but it was pretty clear that Radar was putting all his eggs in one company's PR basket ("D-Wave") and that the company was releasing just enough information to attract venture capital, a sure sign that they are too optimistic.
That company has now run two closed demos which attracted much more criticism than money, in which they claim that QC was happening and roughly the rest of the QC community says it was not. The demos, which included solving a Sudoku puzzle (!), involved tasks that a non-QC can perform.
After the demos, the last of which happened in November 2007 -
one pro-D-Wave blogger noted "I think that there’s a lot to be said for D-Wave, and a lot to be said against it, but by far they’ve got the best chances of anyone at making a quantum computer in the next 5 years." In the next expo where they show, they are involved in a talk which claims their disruptive technology, amongst others such as optical communication and flash memory, "could lead to viable systems in the 2015-2020 timeframe."
Too often Radar uses a "conclusion first" approach: decide what the truth is, and then seek out any corroborating evidence. *Any* evidence will do, no matter how suspect, because it reflects "truth". We all do this from time to time, particularly in politics. The process of picking a side is practically arbitrary, like picking a team to root for in a sport. Once the side is picked, though, the chosen side represents all that is good, and the opposition represents all that is evil or bad.
And so by post #6 in the thread we are already into ad hominem and claims that we are Engineers and Know What We Are Talking About. At that point the whole thread becomes the usual boring insult-trading, and only the Cellar calendar can rescue us.