Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Satellite and cell phone backhaul (Score 1) 57

The telco had to wait for more layoffs to hit the books so they could afford to pay for the rural infrastructure. Or for President Biden's infrastructure program. The problem is that so many wealthy retirees moved out to a country estate. The working class is tired of subsidizing their expensive lifestyles.

Submission + - FCC Officials Took Pricey Gifts From Paramount as the Company Needed Approval fo (propublica.org)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: ProPublica reports that disclosures show FCC Chair Brendan Carr and Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty are among seven FCC commissioners who have accepted Kennedy gala tickets from CBS or its parent company over the last decade. Ethics experts told ProPublica this poses a blatant conflict of interest since the commission regulates the network. Carr’s previous financial statements show he has accepted tickets at least seven times since his 2017 appointment, totaling over $63,000 in gifts. It’s unclear if Paramount gifted Carr the premium seats because the FCC has yet to make public his financial disclosure for last year.

Federal ethics rules ban employees from taking gifts from any entity that does business with, is regulated by or seeks official action from their agency.

Four ethics experts told ProPublica that by accepting the premium tickets Trusty and Carr compromised the FCC’s impartiality and should not take part in any upcoming decision on the merger.

“There’s no way that any top federal regulator should ever, ever accept a gift from a regulated company with interests their work will foreseeably affect,” said Walter Shaub, who led the federal Office of Government Ethics from 2013 to 2017. “The appearance of taking gifts like that is terrible. What’s at stake is nothing less than the public’s trust in government.”

The FCC’s review of the merger is one of the final hurdles facing a historic $110 billion consolidation of two of the five largest film studios in Hollywood. The deal would unite Paramount Skydance with Warner Bros., bringing under the control of one company Paramount+ and HBO Max streaming services; CBS and CNN; and scores of other major broadcast channels, cable networks, and digital platforms.

American and international regulators are evaluating the deal for its potential national security implications and impacts to consumers worldwide. Last week, the British government signaled it planned to investigate whether the new entertainment titan that would emerge from the union would unfairly stifle competition. The FCC’s ongoing review includes examining the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds backing the deal, including from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

The FCC usually has five commissioners — all appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve five-year terms — but the agency currently has only three. Any vote by the full commission would likely be decided by Republicans Carr and Trusty over Democrat Anna Gomez.

The experts warned the commissioners’ gifts might become central in legal challenges and said the Justice Department should investigate potential violations of federal rules or laws.

Neither Carr nor Trusty responded to ProPublica’s requests for comment. Gomez said in a statement that she followed agency advice when she attended the event in 2023 and 2024. Her statement did not elaborate or otherwise address why taking gifts from Paramount did not pose a conflict of interest.

An FCC spokesperson said agency ethics officers have for years cleared commissioner appearances, finding it consistent with ethics law.

“FCC Chairs and officials have attended the same event, in the same ways, consistently from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration to the Obama Administration,” the FCC said in a statement. “There has been no change in recent years.”

Shaub called the justification outrageous.

“It’s no excuse to say that you took the gift because everyone else was doing it or that your agency has had a bad habit of indulging in gift taking for a long time,” Shaub said. “That kind of explanation doesn’t work for school children, and it sure as hell doesn’t work for government officials who are supposed to have better judgment than a fifth grader.”

Richard Painter, a former White House ethics attorney in the administration of George W. Bush, said while courts often defer to the government’s judgment, they also can become skeptical if a regulatory agency is shown to have violated ethics rules.

“A judge may very well say that the merger decision of the FCC isn’t worth jack because the process was corrupted,” he said.

Submission + - How Microsoft's "Little Workaround" Created a Major Pentagon Threat (propublica.org)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: ProPublica Reporter Renee Dudley heard Microsoft was running tech support for the U.S. Defense Department through China, the country’s biggest cybersecurity adversary.

The arrangement was called “digital escorting.” She thought it sounded like a conspiracy theory — until she started looking into it. This is the story of what she found and how her investigation changed government policy.

Microsoft is using engineers in China to help maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems — with minimal supervision by U.S. personnel — leaving some of the nation’s most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking from its leading cyber adversary, a ProPublica investigation has found.

The arrangement, which was critical to Microsoft winning the federal government’s cloud computing business a decade ago, relies on U.S. citizens with security clearances to oversee the work and serve as a barrier against espionage and sabotage.

National security and cybersecurity experts in the Trump administration contacted by ProPublica were also surprised to learn that such an arrangement was in place, especially at a time when the U.S. intelligence community and leading members of Congress and the Trump administration view China’s digital prowess as a top threat to the country.

Microsoft uses the escort system to handle the government’s most sensitive information that falls below “classified.” According to the government, this “high impact level” category includes “data that involves the protection of life and financial ruin.” The “loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability” of this information “could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect” on operations, assets and individuals, the government has said. In the Defense Department, the data is categorized as “Impact Level” 4 and 5 and includes materials that directly support military operations.

“If someone ran a script called ‘fix_servers.sh’ but it actually did something malicious then [escorts] would have no idea,” a former Microsoft engineer who worked on the escort system, told ProPublica in an email. That said, he maintained that the “scope of systems they could disrupt” is limited.

In an emailed statement, the Defense Information Systems Agency said that cloud service providers “are required to establish and maintain controls for vetting and using qualified specialists,” but the agency did not respond to ProPublica’s questions regarding the digital escorts’ qualifications.

It’s unclear whether other cloud providers to the federal government use digital escorts as part of their tech support. Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud declined to comment on the record for this article. Oracle did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for the inspector general — whose office is supposed to operate independently in order to investigate potential waste, fraud and abuse — told ProPublica they were not authorized to speak about the issue and directed questions to DISA public affairs.

Submission + - 'I'm not a programmer' anymore: Linus Torvalds (zdnet.com)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: ZDNet reports at the Open Source Summit in Mumbai, Linux creator Linus Torvalds and his friend Dirk Hohndel discussed the current state of Linux and where it's headed. Torvalds described his work pattern during kernel merge windows: "Over two weeks, I do roughly 200 merges. That's a very rough ballpark number." Here's another thing that's changed: Torvalds no longer sees himself as a programmer. "Let's be entirely honest. I hardly read code at all anymore. I'm not a programmer, I'm a development lead."

What matters most to him is understanding intent: "When I do a pull request, I want to understand the bigger picture. It's one of the reasons I ask for pull requests with very good explanations: I will read them. I want to understand what's going on."

On mixed C/Rust code bases, he pointed out that guarantees are limited: "The guarantees that Rust give you only apply in the Rust-only parts of your code base, and wherever you interact with C code, all bets are off," with most Rust code in Linux talking to "core kernel C code" that is "much better quality because that code has been tested in every single environment."

He concluded, "There are many useful and less useful uses for AI," and "I think Godzilla is a great place to stop."

Submission + - 'Humanizer' tool can erase signs of AI-written text — alarming scientists (nature.com)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: The scientific journal Nature reports that a new academic 'humanizer' tool aims to personalize the tone of research papers written with an artificial intelligence program, in part by erasing apparent signs of AI usage. Some researchers praise the tool, but others are voicing concerns about a new global era of AI slop, indirect plagiarism, and IP theft.

The new humanizer is "not sophisticated," says Max Spero, chief executive of a firm in New York City that produces an AI detection platform called Pangram. In his initial tests of 'humanized' text, Pangram caught most of the AI-generated language, although not all of it. Spero says that upgraded versions of Pangram are being designed specifically to detect humanizer use.

Scientists are increasingly turning to AI systems to help them write papers, grant applications, and even peer reviews. AI assistance can be a boon, particularly for people writing in a language that is not their first, and many publishers allow some degree of AI use in preparing papers if such use is declared.

Humanizers are finding increasing favor among researchers who use AI because different AIs all "sound the same," like Donald Trump's so-called "speeches" to the American sheep, people. The tone of AI-generated text is sometimes inappropriate for academic writing. For example, the tools can exaggerate the strength of a scientific claim, he says. And most AI output has a similar style, which readers tire of, he adds.

Those preferences are likely to lead to an "explosion" of the sort of personalized AI writing, says Richard She, a biologist at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who says he finds AI writing "depressing. " He predicts that within two years, text run through humanizers will be indistinguishable from human-written text. "The simple reality is that there's this amazing tool, and people will use it. And because they'll use it, they'll defend it."

Submission + - A startup claims it broke through a bottleneck that's holding back LLMs (technologyreview.com)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: MIT Technology review reports that Miami-based AI startup Subquadratic came out of stealth mode last month with a huge claim. It announced that it had solved a mathematical bottleneck that had been holding back large language models for almost a decade.
According to Subquadratic, it has developed a new kind of LLM, called SubQ, that is faster and cheaper and uses a lot less energy than any other model on the market. The company also claims that SubQ is able to process up to 12 times as much text at once than most other models, allowing it to carry out a range of data-heavy tasks, such as analyzing hundreds of documents or entire code bases.
The problem was that the company at first provided little evidence for its claims beyond a handful of self-published test scores. And it has yet to make SubQ widely available for people to try out themselves.
So it’s no surprise that Subquadratic’s claims were met with skepticism. Dan McAteer, an artificial intelligence engineer, captured the overall response on X: “SubQ is either the biggest breakthrough since the Transformer ... or it’s AI Theranos.”
“We expected healthy skepticism,” says Subquadratic cofounder and chief technology officer Alex Whedon. “In hindsight, releasing the third-party benchmarks alongside the initial announcement would have preempted much of the skepticism, which is why we’re taking the time to make sure any future results are fully verified before putting them out.”
SubQ won’t replace existing top models across the board, but it could offer huge increases in speed at a fraction of the typical cost for certain tasks. Subquadratic insists that in the long run, though, its breakthrough could change how LLMs are built. “We hope we’re kicking off a new age of efficiency,” says Justin Dangel, the firm’s cofounder and CEO. “We don’t think anybody will be building on transformers in a few years.”

Submission + - What is a quantum computer good for? Absolutely nothing — yet (theverge.com)

Submitted by joshuark
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?

Submission + - Microsoft fake Windows error ended in a $280 million secret settlement (makeuseof.com)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: Facing real competition from Digital Research's DR DOS, Microsoft secretly embedded a sabotaging mechanism known as "AARD code" into beta versions of Windows 3.1 to prevent it from running on Digital Research's competing DR DOS operating system.
This code triggered fake, alarming error messages to convince developers that DR DOS was unstable, effectively eliminating a significant market threat through fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Although the company disabled the feature in the final retail release, the California-based firm Caldera, Inc., which had acquired DR DOS assets, sued Microsoft for anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft settled the lawsuit out of court in 2000 for $280 million, a figure that remained sealed until it was unsealed in 2009. Nothing says taking ownership and responsibility than keeping it a sealed secret for a decade. Microsoft paid for being clumsy enough to write the intent down in an email. The lesson the industry took away wasn't "don't do it." It was "don't put it in writing." Something Bill Gates forgot with Epstein.

Comment IBM is ready... (Score 1) 74

by joshuark (#66213726) Attached to: IBM is Getting Ready to Scale Quantum Computing

IBM is ready, yeah "everyone" is ready for the disco comeback.

A friend of mine talked with this guy on LinkedIn who was selling "tech training" about quantum computing, declaring "RSA is dead." Doing scam training on some new technology that is the next thing and we have to get ready for...

Last time it was "blockchain" and how its going to change the world like cold-fusion, room temperature superconductors, etc.

The IBM CEO, CTO, and all those "experts" a song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Although the hype is great to boost the stock value of IBM without buy backs, and then cash in the stock grants.

https://www.cnn.com/markets/st...

--JoshK.

Submission + - New Study Shows Tall Vehicle Hoods Cause Hundreds More Deaths Per Year (caranddriver.com)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: Car and Driver magazine reports that a new study conducted by the New York Times shows that the increase in vehicle hood height seen over the last two and a half decades, mainly due to the rise in popularity of large SUVs and trucks, has resulted in several thousand deaths that otherwise may not have happened. The study shows that while automakers and regulators have focused on occupant safety, they have turned a blind eye to pedestrian safety, which has fallen since around 2009.
Researchers looked at four main datasets in their investigation: crash test data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) from 2016 to 2024; NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS); vehicle measurement data from Expert AutoStats; and vehicle registration data from S&P Global from 2002 to 2024.
The researchers concluded that the increased danger to pedestrians is caused by two main culprits.
First, large SUVs and trucks have taller hoods, raising the point of impact above most people's center of gravity and pushing them to the ground, typically hard asphalt, rather than up and onto the hood, which is designed to absorb impacts.
Second, with larger A-pillars designed to protect occupants in rollover crashes, modern cars tend to have larger blind spots than cars sold at the turn of the century (presuming the 21st century).
The shift toward vehicles with taller hoods led to roughly 3000 deaths between 2016 and 2024. This number is conservative because it does not include crashes that take place in parking lots, driveways, or private roads, which aren't part of the federal database.
The data also showed an estimated 2.8 percent increase in the odds of a pedestrian fatality for every one-inch increase in vehicle hood height. Between two different scenarios, one decreasing the hood height of every vehicle in the dataset by 3 inches, and the second using a random sampling of hood heights from 2002 across 10,000 simulated crashes, between 2624 (for scenario two) and 3077 (for scenario one) lives could have been saved from 2016 to 2024.

Submission + - M&M's Is Getting Rid Of 2 Iconic Colors—But There's A Good Reason Why (delish.com)

Submitted by joshuark
joshuark writes: Mars, the maker of M&M’s, will no longer manufacture blue and brown M&M’s. That’s right, the popular chocolate candy brand is doing away with two of its iconic colors, but not without good reason.The company is phasing out synthetic dyes and has plans to launch a natural version of the candy this August. Currently, the small candy-coated chocolates come in seven bright colors—red, yellow, green, blue, orange, brown, and sometimes purple. As it turns out, replicating all of these colors in the same shades using natural ingredients was harder than anticipated.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Mars had little trouble recreating the red, orange, yellow, and green M&M colors using ingredients such as turmeric and beets. Mars is moving forward with natural M&M’s in just red, green, yellow, and orange. That pack of M&M’s will never be the same. RIP li’l buddies.

Not surprising as red was once taboo for a decade. https://www.cnn.com/videos/bus...

Slashdot Top Deals

MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.

Close