SoylentNews

Hugh Pickens writes:

The NYT reports that with the release of the long-awaited Senate report on the use of torture by the United States government — a detailed account that will shed an unsparing light on the Central Intelligence Agency’s darkest practices after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US is bracing itself for the risk that it will set off a backlash overseas. Some leading Republican lawmakers have warned against releasing the report, saying that domestic and foreign intelligence reports indicate that a detailed account of the brutal interrogation methods used by the CIA during the George W. Bush administration could incite unrest and violence, even resulting in the deaths of Americans. The White House acknowledged that the report could pose a “greater risk” to American installations and personnel in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Iraq. But it said that the government had months to plan for the reverberations from its report — indeed, years — and that those risks should not delay the release of the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. “When would be a good time to release this report?” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, asked. “It’s difficult to imagine one, particularly given the painful details that will be included.”

Among the administration’s concerns is that terrorist groups will exploit the disclosures in the report for propaganda value. The Islamic State already clads its American hostages in orange jumpsuits, like those worn by prisoners in CIA interrogations. Hostages held by the Islamic State in Syria were subjected to waterboarding, one of the practices used by the CIA to extract information from suspected terrorists. The 480-page document reveals the results of Senate investigation into the CIA's use of torture and other techniques that violate international law against prisoners held on terrorism-related charges. Though many details of the Senate's findings will remain classified – the document is a summary of a 6,000-page report that is not being released – the report is expected to conclude that the methods used by the CIA to interrogate prisoners during the post-9/11 years were more extreme than previously admitted and produced no intelligence that could not have been acquired through legal means.

frojack writes:

Recent developments in Solar power are seeing Solar combined with other technologies to achieve efficiency never before seen.

Desalination as covered here on SN, claim to combine photovoltaic (PV) panels along with heat capture to improve the total energy capture of solar panels.

The Sydney Morning Herald is running a story about a development in PV systems using off the shell solar panels:

While other solar cell technology with high efficiency use special laboratory PV cells that "you've got no chance of buying commercially", the new development uses standard off the shelf solar technology in stacked arrays.

“The new results are based on the use of focused sunlight, and are particularly relevant to photovoltaic power towers being developed in Australia,” says Martin Green, UNSW Scientia Professor and Director of the Advanced Centre for Advanced Photovoltaics. Spectrolab, a US-based company that provided some of the cells used in the project.

GreatAuntAnesthesia writes:

An interview with former SpaceX Engineer Tom Markusic and a walk around the new Texas headquarters of his company Firefly Space Systems, a private space firm with plans to "democratize access to space".

Ars Technica - Firefly Space Systems charges full-speed toward low Earth orbit

Firefly is a "new space" company, a term that differentiates it and its contemporaries, like SpaceX and Blue Origin, from "old space" stalwarts like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. "Old space" companies built Apollo and the Space Shuttle and the ISS, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that the ossified "old space" model of multi-decade government contract work and hidebound development and accounting practices doesn’t own access to orbit anymore. We’re entering the "new space" era where small agile companies stand on the shoulders of the slow-moving giants and send not just billion-dollar government payloads and multi-PhD-equipped astronauts into orbit, but cheap small payloads and possibly even tourists.

The article goes on to talk about an evolutionary change in the rocket they are designing.

The design of that rocket is what made Ars gravitate toward exploring Firefly’s story in the first place: rather than walking down more traditional rocketry paths, the Alpha will be constructed from composites and will use a methane-fueled plugged autogenously pressurized aerospike engine.

The Mighty Buzzard writes:

The fine folks over at the University of Wollongong bring us this titillating tidbit:

Work first started on the Bionic Bra more than fifteen years ago. However, technology is only starting to catch up with the researchers' imaginations.

Professor Gordon Wallace, Executive Research Director of the based at UOW, said the Bionic Bra team has recently discovered new actuators and sensing technologies that will bring the bra to life.

“Our ability to make things from advanced materials has been greatly enhanced recently with the advent of new approaches to fabrication. The advent of approaches such as 3D printing has enabled us to assemble structures containing new sensing technologies to more accurately monitor movement and new artificial muscle technologies to control it. These advances have inspired us to (re)confront the challenges involved in creating the Bionic Bra," Professor Wallace said.

Professor Julie Steele, Director of Breast Research Australia (BRA) based at UOW, has been working with Professor Wallace on the bra since its inception. She has also been investigating the movement of women’s breast during physical activity for more than 15 years. She said without the right breast support, long-term damage can be done, including numbness in the fingers caused by compression of nerves on the shoulders, as well as neck and back pain.

Sorry, no juvenile breasts joke. I'll leave that for the commenters.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

The Register's Richard Chirgwin writes:

"Quantum computing is so powerful it takes two years to understand what happened"

From the story:

In 2012, a group of Chinese quantum physicists use an adiabatic quantum algorithm to factor 143 AND (unexpectedly) 3,599, 11,663 and 56,153 using a 4 qbit quantum computer and "...can be reproduced and therefore validated on a classical computer without waiting an unreasonable time to test the work."

Paper #1: http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3726
Paper #2: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6758

Full details here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/04/boffins_we_factored_143_no_you_factored_56153/

TL;DR:

So far, every shot at using a quantum computer to solve Shor's algorithm could only be tested if the researcher already knew the answer, while this minimisation approach has factorised 56,153 without being able to peek in the back of the book.

Which takes the world a considerable distance towards being able to demonstrate the kind of quantum-based factorisation that would eventually obsolete current cryptography.

=====

A key comment from Chris Miller posted to the message board for this story on December 4, 2014:

Thanks, Forget It

So, if I understand it correctly (probably not), the method only works to factorise numbers that have two odd factors that differ by a power of 2 (e.g. 56153 = 233 x 241), and so could be easily defeated (for cryptographic purposes) by minor tweaks to the choice of the two large prime numbers used to compute the private key.

another from DragonLord

They can simulate the factorisation problem with a classical computer running a virtual quantum computer. However the classical computer can only model so many qbits before it becomes infeasibly slow (kinda like trying to model an ipad using an 08086). This means that they can verify the results that a machine is providing by running it through their simulations to see if it comes up with the same answer.

Not much more I can add to this story as the submitter. The above text and links speak for themselves....

buswolley writes:

Verily, money is power. The huge and growing concentration of wealth occurring in the U.S. citizenry and in business translates directly to political power for the few, and political weakness for the rest. Because of this, the general citizenry of the U.S. cannot really hope to command real representation of their interests by their elected representatives. Thus the U.S. is in the midst of a several-decade long crisis of corrupted governance. Is there a non-violent solution to this problem which can gain traction despite the political weakness of the U.S. citizenry?

I would ask the SoylentNews community to comment on a proposal which my dad and I generated over stuffed turkey and too much red wine. While not a technological innovation, this is a community which has good ideas and can offer insightful criticisms.

The solution I’m proposing is simple:

The Federal government issues to every adult citizen $100 which can only be spent by donating it to a registered political candidate.

Why it might work:

1. $100 isn’t much in itself, but collectively it is three times the amount that was spent in the last presidential election. That is a real political power.
2. You can donate it to 3rd party candidates.

Why it could be put into law:

1. The media corporations cannot disregard the immense profits that would be had from the quadrupling of spending on elections by adding ~23 billion dollars? Why wouldn’t they herald it as American as apple pie? As a noble investment in democracy?
2. The biggest lobby of government is Google, and Google would profit from increased political ad spending too, and by selling information about voter preferences so that politicians can figure out how to get your $100 donation.
3. On a personal note, politicians hate having to give so many fund raisers...this is an out.
4. The law is fair. There is no proposal to give certain disadvantaged groups more money than others. The richest American would get $100 too.
5. It doesn’t outlaw free speech by corporations and political groups. These groups can still provide their valuable input to the political discussion.

I’m trying to poke holes. It does increase spending, but most of that spending directly benefits key power brokers.

juggs writes:

If you are reading this and you are experienced with Perl, then your community needs you.

You see the heroic work being done by our devs Proposed Moderation Rework Experiment and think that couldn't be you? Think again Comrade - you too could be a SN hero!

Seriously - we need some Perl skilled people to offer some time. It doesn't need to be a massive commitment, a few hours here and there to squash a bug or two as it suits would be just fine.

You can contact me by email (above), or you'll find the usual reprobates malingering around #soylent on our irc server.

Hugh Pickens writes:

Edward Wyatt reports at the NYT that the NAACP, the National Urban League and the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition have sent representatives, including the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, to tell Tom Wheeler, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, that they think Obama’s call to regulate broadband Internet service as a utility would harm minority communities by stifling investment in underserved areas and entrenching already dominant Internet companies. Jackson "was unequivocal in voicing his opposition to Title II because of its effects on investment in broadband and because of the ultimate impact on minority communities and job creation," says Berin Szoka, another participant in the meeting with Wheeler who has also argued for Section 706. "We got a lot of poor folks who don't have broadband," said Jackson. "If you create something where, for the poor, the lane is slower and the cost is more, you can't survive." “I think we’re all on board with the values embedded in what President Obama said, things like accelerating broadband deployment and adoption,” says Nicol Turner-Lee, vice president of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council and a member of the group including Mr. Jackson that met with the F.C.C. chairman. “The question is, will we be able to solve these issues by going so far with stringent regulation?”

Some of the groups that oppose Title II designation, like the Urban League and the League of United Latin American Citizens, have received contributions from organizations affiliated with Internet service providers, like the Comcast Foundation, the charitable organization endowed by Comcast. But those organizations say that the donations or sponsorships do not influence their positions. “We get support from people on all sides of the issue, including Google and Facebook,” says Brent A. Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens. “We don’t let any of them influence our position.” For it's part, the NAACP says its formal policy position is that the NAACP neither endorses, nor opposes the formally defined concept of net neutrality but supports the need to particularly focus on under-served racial and ethnic minority and poor communities, while highlighting the importance of protecting an open internet.

Blackmoore writes:

Ars Technica - brings us sad news -

UPDATE, 12/7/2014, 5:25p CT: News broke this afternoon that inventor and gaming pioneer Ralph Baer passed away at the age of 92. In light of this, we've dusted off this profile on Baer's life and career from our archives. It originally ran on July 13, 2013.

and the profile of one of the pioneers of videogames Baer’s Odyssey: Meet the serial inventor who built the world’s first game console

Even if you're a devoted fan of video games, there's a decent chance you're not familiar with the name Ralph H. Baer. This should be considered gamer high treason considering Baer's importance in creating the concept of home video games and the vast, varied entertainment ecosystem now built upon them. Despite being the one to push the dominoes toward an industry that currently makes billions of dollars annually, the bulk of the gaming community has largely forgotten about him.

I Think I'll crack out the Odyssey2 emulator and reminisce.

janrinok writes:

Another story from The Register:

Chipzilla has decided to take another run at the mobile chip market, announcing plans to spin as much as US$1.6 billion in the direction of its Chengdu plant in China to achieve its aims.

The money will go towards upgrade a decade-old facility to try to assert its 900-pound-gorilla status in the mobile silicon business, for too long a gap in Intel's strategy.

Details of Intel's intent are fairly sketchy, but the company told China Daily the 2,500-plus employee assembly test site is an important deployment particularly for its “mobility business in the tablet, smartphone, Internet of Things and wearable segments”.

janrinok writes:

Onetime Apple supply manager Paul Shin Devine will spend a year in prison and repay $4.5 million for selling Apple's secrets to suppliers, Ars Technica reports. Devine, who worked at Apple from 2005 until his arrest in August of 2010, pleaded guilty to wire fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering—and could have been sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison.

Working with Singapore resident Andrew Ang, Devine was accused of selling confidential information to companies that hoped to become Apple suppliers, and to suppliers trying to negotiate better deals with the company. Winning an Apple contract can be a make-or-break moment for a supplier, as we saw in the recent dust-up between Apple and would-be sapphire manufacturer GT Advanced Technologies; companies hoping to get in on the action sent "millions in kickbacks" to Devine.

Ang and Chua Kim Guan, who were respectively the sales director and general manager of Jin Li Mould Manufacturing, were charged in 2013 for bribing Devine. They were accused of paying Devine $387,600 between 2006 and 2009.

Hugh Pickens writes:

Frédéric Filloux reports at Monday Note that two groups of French publishers, the GESTE and the French Internet Advertising Bureau, are considering a lawsuit against AdBlockPlus creator Eyeo GmbH on grounds that it represents a major economic threat to their business. According to LesEchos.fr, EYEO, which publishes Adblock Plus, has developed a business model where they offer not to block publishers' advertisements for remuneration as long as the ads are judged non-intrusive (Google Translate, Original here). "Several criteria must be met as well: advertisements must be identified as such, be static and therefore not contain animation, no sound, and should not interfere with the content. A position that some media have likened to extortion."

According to Filloux the legal action misses the point. By downloading AdBlock Plus (ABP) on a massive scale, users are voting with their mice against the growing invasiveness of digital advertising. Therefore, suing Eyeo, the company that maintains ABP, is like using Aspirin to fight cancer. A different approach is required but very few seem ready to face that fact. "We must admit that Eyeo GmbH is filling a vacuum created by the incompetence and sloppiness of the advertising community’s, namely creative agencies, media buyers and organizations that are supposed to coordinate the whole ecosystem," says Filloux. Even Google has begun to realize that the explosion of questionable advertising formats has become a problem and the proof is Google's recent Contributor program that proposes ad-free navigation in exchange for a fee ranging from $1 to $3 per month. "The growing rejection of advertising AdBlock Plus is built upon is indeed a threat to the ecosystem and it needs to be addressed decisively. For example, by bringing at the same table publishers and advertisers to meet and design ways to clean up the ad mess. But the entity and leaders who can do the job have yet to be found."

Update: Los Angeles Schools iPad Program Target of Federal Criminal Probe

"gewg_" writes:

No sooner had I submitted about the previous development ($500 Chromebooks or $700 iPads) [Eds Note: See Below] when the defecation contacted the rotary ventilator again.

The Daily Breeze reports:

LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines is scuttling the district's iPad curriculum contract with Pearson in the wake of an FBI probe of the deal.

According to documents released December 2, as part of a criminal investigation being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a federal grand jury will weigh information pertaining to Los Angeles Unified's plan to buy $1.3 billion in iPads.[1]

The federal probe--which dispatched FBI agents to collect 20 boxes of records from LAUSD's headquarters Monday afternoon--along with a report from LAUSD's inspector general, prompted Superintendent Ramon Cortines to ditch the controversial deal with Apple and Pearson.

[...]While Cortines had hoped students at 27 schools in the next phase would have the devices this school year, they will now have to wait until fall 2015.

[1] I can't believe that the Daily Breeze editor allowed that sentence to go through in its original form.

mechanicjay writes:

We have an internal web app for the folks downstairs which was written about 10 years ago. Part of the app is done with a frameset. It's actually a pretty decent implementation of such and has worked really well for them over the years.

I'm trying to modernize this app, both structurally and visually. On the backend, I've done some crazy stuff, such as putting functions in their own libraries and eliminating all the inline, css, js, and SQL. On the front-end, I'm doing some cleanup in the way the page renders making sure different parts of the app use the same function libraries include common css and js libraries.

The problem comes from changing that one page which uses a frameset to organize the content and structure to using divs and css to show/hide different regions. The feedback on the overhaul overall has been very positive, but, they *really* liked the ability to resize the regions on that screen. I'm trying to get some feedback on use cases to see if I can tweak the layout such that they won't miss the old functionality, else I may be looking at using a potentially criminal amount of javascript to poorly replicate the functionality afforded by a simple tag.

So the question is, just do a frameset and screw the future, replicate poorly with javascript and screw maintainability (and the future), or tell them to suck it just, just because!?

janrinok writes:

The Register is running with a story that criminal lawyers in the Netherlands are pushing back against the country's data retention laws:

The Netherlands is the latest EU country to see pushback against excessive state surveillance of the Internet, with that country's criminal lawyers' association leading a court action against the state over its data retention laws.

The association (the NVSA) has joined forces with the Dutch Association of Journalists, Privacy First, NDP New Media, local ISP Bit, and Publiekstijdschriften. In light of the EU Court of Justice decision in April, which in April ruled that Europe's two-year data retention directive was invalid, the plaintiffs want the Netherlands' data retention regime repealed.

At the time, the EU Court of Justice ruled that the data retention regime represented a “wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data”, and went beyond was was “strictly necessary”.

I wonder how many other European countries are waiting to see the outcome of this particular attempt to redress the balance?