Comment copilot (Score 1) 2
So how do we clean Copilot from windows computers and gemini from our android phone?
Comment Re:Solar fricken roadways all over again (Score 1) 119
It's a trade off: you get abundant free energy to run the server, with extreme constraints on cooling because your server is running in the most perfect Thermos bottle ever.
Others are taking the opposite tack: undersea data centers for abundant free cooling at the expense of having to get the power down to your servers.
If had to bet on which one is more practial, I'd go with undersea servers. Build them off the coast of Chile, run cables out from batery-backed solar plants in the Atacama desert.
Comment Autocad (Score 1) 243
Autocad comes to my mind.
Comment Injust (Score 1) 85
Companies violate antitrust law and then can sit it out in court. Only the lawyers win.
Submission + - What is a quantum computer good for? Absolutely nothing — yet (theverge.com)
joshuark writes: The Verge has an article about the "absolute nothing" of quantum computers. We have yet to see a quantum computer conclusively perform a single useful task. Existing machines are simply too small and error-ridden to solve commercially relevant problems.
Companies drive the hype, too. In June, Microsoft announced a new quantum computing chip named Majorana 2. It claimed the chip was a hardware advancement that accelerates its timeline to a “scalable, practical quantum computer” by 2029. But independent experts swiftly criticized the announcement. “This is complete codswallop,” Henry Legg, a physicist from the University of St. Andrews and a longtime Microsoft critic, tells The Verge.
Legg just published a paper in Nature on June 24th criticizing Microsoft’s quantum claims from a year ago — peer review takes a long time — and pointing to what he sees as major discrepancies between Microsoft’s papers and press releases. Nature included Microsoft’s rebuttal.
Researchers have made genuine progress in quantum computing — it’s just been largely incremental and too esoteric to immediately capture the public’s imagination. Proponents predict that the technology will lead to discoveries in medicine, as well as advances in materials science and machine learning. Meanwhile, many national security experts frame its development as a new Cold War competition between the US and China.
Some have imagined the quantum computer as a cyberattack tool. In 1994, computer scientist Peter Shor developed a quantum computing algorithm for factoring prime numbers that should be able to break RSA encryption, a ubiquitous family of algorithms used to secure banking and email communications. So "RSA is dead" is the repeated mantra of the quantum computing hype.
Current quantum computers like Google’s Willow are individual chips too primitive to break RSA encryption or implement drug molecule simulations. But the vision is to build scaled-up machines that can.
Similar cycles have played out several times since the technology’s beginnings. Companies announce a breakthrough; independent researchers cry hype, all while investors continue to inject money into the industry. Then investors cash out and then call it a "scam" on the public.
Henry Legg is more skeptical and thinks some have underestimated the fundamental challenges of scaling. “There’s no evidence of the scalability of any platform to the level that you would need to do useful quantum computations within a decade, or probably a couple of decades,” he says.
While researchers have made progress toward building a useful quantum computer, it’s not clear what that use should be. “It’s such a nascent technology,” says Islam. “If you ask, what is a quantum computer good for, I do not know of an application which is a sure shot.”
The Trump administration wants a useful quantum computer in two years. Are we having fun yet?
Companies drive the hype, too. In June, Microsoft announced a new quantum computing chip named Majorana 2. It claimed the chip was a hardware advancement that accelerates its timeline to a “scalable, practical quantum computer” by 2029. But independent experts swiftly criticized the announcement. “This is complete codswallop,” Henry Legg, a physicist from the University of St. Andrews and a longtime Microsoft critic, tells The Verge.
Legg just published a paper in Nature on June 24th criticizing Microsoft’s quantum claims from a year ago — peer review takes a long time — and pointing to what he sees as major discrepancies between Microsoft’s papers and press releases. Nature included Microsoft’s rebuttal.
Researchers have made genuine progress in quantum computing — it’s just been largely incremental and too esoteric to immediately capture the public’s imagination. Proponents predict that the technology will lead to discoveries in medicine, as well as advances in materials science and machine learning. Meanwhile, many national security experts frame its development as a new Cold War competition between the US and China.
Some have imagined the quantum computer as a cyberattack tool. In 1994, computer scientist Peter Shor developed a quantum computing algorithm for factoring prime numbers that should be able to break RSA encryption, a ubiquitous family of algorithms used to secure banking and email communications. So "RSA is dead" is the repeated mantra of the quantum computing hype.
Current quantum computers like Google’s Willow are individual chips too primitive to break RSA encryption or implement drug molecule simulations. But the vision is to build scaled-up machines that can.
Similar cycles have played out several times since the technology’s beginnings. Companies announce a breakthrough; independent researchers cry hype, all while investors continue to inject money into the industry. Then investors cash out and then call it a "scam" on the public.
Henry Legg is more skeptical and thinks some have underestimated the fundamental challenges of scaling. “There’s no evidence of the scalability of any platform to the level that you would need to do useful quantum computations within a decade, or probably a couple of decades,” he says.
While researchers have made progress toward building a useful quantum computer, it’s not clear what that use should be. “It’s such a nascent technology,” says Islam. “If you ask, what is a quantum computer good for, I do not know of an application which is a sure shot.”
The Trump administration wants a useful quantum computer in two years. Are we having fun yet?
Comment Re:Amazon is corrupt! (Score 4, Insightful) 22
I think it may be evidence that Amazon has a shitty corporate culture that squeezes every penny it can out its employees.
Corruption can happen anywhere, but it's more likely to happen in totalitarian cultures where people feel like the system is rigged anyway. That's why countries like Russia and China have corruption problems. But I suspect the same feelings of me vs. the system occur in a capitalist enterprise like Amazon where employees are governed by dystopian, rigid, computerized metrics.
Comment Springer (Score 2) 21
This is completely stupid. There can't be a copyright violation obviously.
or as Max Planck wrote "Aus nichts läßt sich nichts folgern." - No conclusion can be drawn from nothing.
Thanksfully the Max Planck society supported the Berlin Declaration on Open Access.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Comment From the past (Score 1) 50
Fascinating, when could we read the scroll?
There are also lots of artefacts from the last century lost. Video games from the 1980s.
One could recreate music by optical 3D scanning shellac records and combining different prints to eliminate the noise. The quality gets better. Just image a new scan of Metropolis negative with current technology Or Robert Johnson even better than in the Centennial edition..
Comment reactos (Score 1) 250
Itt would be great to get massive funding for ReactOS instead of reactors.
Comment Kangeroo court (Score 1) 214
That is basically rule by Kangeroo court.
Comment Re:Dictators (Score 3, Informative) 55
The restrictions are a mix of reasonable nuisance management and paranoia about who is flying drones, what they can do, and chain of custody.
Beijing proper is a city with a population density of over 21,000 / km^2 -- so you can imagine the chaos if any tech enthusiast resident could fly a drone without a permit. Except for a couple of free zones in the outer boroughs, New York City restricts drone launcing and landings within the city to flights with a permit and flight plan, because otherwise the sky would be black with drones. Many cities -- both red and blue -- have zone restrictions for drone flights, and those currently hosting World Cup matches have tightened them for the duration of the tournament.
Comment It's the beginning (Score 1) 106
I think you are reading the document wrong. The European Commission is not a legislator, it just proposes laws.
First for all there will the Digital Fairness Act presented and MEPs are free to put into it whatever they feel is suitable to protect consumers including stopping kill-games language.
Also, the MEPs could use the Cloud and Development Act to strengthen reverse engineering and interoperability rights for game servers.
The interesting aspect is here:
"Rightsholders remain in principle free to determine whether and how their protected works may
be used, including by imposing temporal limits or other conditions on the uses authorised under
licences to third parties in accordance with Union copyright law."
While that is true the limit was not announced upfront.
The European Software Directive states in Recital 13:
"(13) The exclusive rights of the author to prevent the unauthorised reproduction of his work should be subject to a limited exception in the case of a computer program to allow the reproduction technically necessary for the use of that program by the lawful acquirer. This means that the acts of loading and running necessary for the use of a copy of a program which has been lawfully acquired, and the act of correction of its errors, may not be prohibited by contract. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, including when a copy of the program has been sold, any other act necessary for the use of the copy of a program may be performed in accordance with its intended purpose by a lawful acquirer of that copy."
The EC itself will proceed with a CoC style approach:
"While a legislative initiative to establish an obligation for publishers that sell or license video
games to consumers in the European Union to keep them in a playable state, as requested by the
ECI, is not envisaged, the Commission intends to initiate stakeholder exchanges by the end of
2026 to explore the possibility of elaborating a self-regulatory/industry-led code of conduct to
improve the management of video games’ end-of-life and strengthen transparency to consumers.
In addition, the Commission plans to present its report on the application of Directive (EU)
2019/770 by the end of 2026, covering also its application to the discontinuation of digital content
and services. "
This is not the end of the road.
Comment Re:ENISA (Score 1) 8
The same would apply to public utility companies. Doen't change the fact that they have an independent agency
Comment Re:I'm still in awe (Score 1) 18
One should keep in mind how Microsoft hehaved in Brussels in the past. It has a legacy of worst lobbying. Now we see the likes ot BSA and CCIA prepared to go after the Tech Sovereignty Package. These policies have strong acking from MEPs, get involved in dirty lobbying, hire tobacco lobbyists again and you will end like the toacco industry. Brussels politicians are completely fed up with Microsoft. There is nothing Lisa Monaco can do.
Submission + - BSA lashes out at mandatory open-source licensing (bsa.org)
Elektroschock writes: The American Business Software Alliance (BSA) does not consider mandatory open-source licensing to be an appropriate indicator of sovereignty. This is among the "pointed messages" they sent to the French government consultation (closed) today. "What protects Europe is the ability to govern, audit, and mitigate risk, not where a company files its corporate papers," said Thomas Boué of BSA.
