Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Submission + - US sanctions Italian leftwing net infrastructure provider (wewillfreeus.org)

Submitted by Elektroschock
Elektroschock writes: The United States put an Italian hacktivism group providing net infrastructure on a terror list and revoked their domain name. On August 26, 2026, the United States State Department designated Autistici/Inventati a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and placed it on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list.

Comment Rat knot (Score 4, Interesting) 14

I looked it up in wikipedia, so in English it is the same as in my native tongue. There is this strange nature phenonemon of the rat king, mutliple rats with intertwined tails.

So in my view these relations and circular businesses of the AI companies, and particularly this article about the chinese model, very much remind me of a rat king. A sure way in the prospect of an AI financial market crash that they will all die together.

Comment Re:Kent Walker (Score 1) 51

by Elektroschock (#66250364) Attached to: EU Forces Google To Share Search Data, Open Android To Rivals

That is something you just made up. In fact you can only have an antitrust ruling based on law and the current news is that the European Court of Justice dismissed a legal complaint from Alphabet against a prior ruling. So we are not anymore on a level where one could make a political argument. The disrespectful remarks of Mr. Walker are unprecedented. You don't attack courts.

Submission + - European Cyber Resiliance Act getting into force (gesmer.com)

Submitted by Elektroschock
Elektroschock writes: Andy Updegrove warns: September 11, 2026. Actively exploited vulnerabilities and severe incidents must be reported to the designated national incident response team and the EU cybersecurity agency through a single EU reporting platform, on a 24-hour / 72-hour / final-report timeline.

Comment Re:Just a matter of time (Score 1) 75

by Elektroschock (#66242778) Attached to: EU Won't Require User-Replaceable Batteries for Wearables

This is not voted on by Parliament but Parliament could object to it. Under Article 290 TFEU, delegated acts may supplement or amend non-essential elements of a legislative act. The original legislation must define the objectives, scope, content and duration of the delegation. Parliament and the Council retain control: they may revoke the delegation or object to an individual delegated act. Here we have the Commission using a delegated act, an administrative measure, to amend the European law, without meeting the prerequisites:

"Such delegated acts shall be adopted only on account of market developments and technical and scientific progress, and provided that there are scientifically grounded concerns over the safety of end-users removing or replacing the portable battery, or in cases where there is a risk that the removal or the replacement of the battery by end-users would be in violation of any product safety requirements provided for by applicable Union law."

This is a shady legal base for the current action, so this would blow up if scrutinised by Parliament or Council. Furthermore, there is really no point of communicating to trading partners in the way that it has been done, which casts a very bad light.

Comment Just a matter of time (Score 1) 75

by Elektroschock (#66241832) Attached to: EU Won't Require User-Replaceable Batteries for Wearables

It looks more like a temporary issue, better work on compliance before the law comes back. After all the commission does not decide things:

Here is the legal base:
"The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 89 to amend paragraph 2 of this Article by adding further products to be exempted from the removability and replaceability requirements laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article. Such delegated acts shall be adopted only on account of market developments and technical and scientific progress, and provided that there are scientifically grounded concerns over the safety of end-users removing or replacing the portable battery, or in cases where there is a risk that the removal or the replacement of the battery by end-users would be in violation of any product safety requirements provided for by applicable Union law."

I don't think this condition for the delegated act is met.

It is also offensive that the EC informs the WTO TBT but not the European Parliament.

Submission + - Where to start with the best OSS Strategy? (suse.com)

Submitted by Elektroschock
Elektroschock writes: The new European Union Open Source Strategy, presented last month, is the best in the world, says Suse. Yet it was time for chop-chop.

We say this not as a courtesy before criticism, and because the quality of the foundation is what makes the remaining work worth doing.

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?

Slashdot Top Deals

In the realm of scientific observation, luck is granted only to those who are prepared. - Louis Pasteur

Close