Mediaboss Marketing

Within a decade, quantum technologies will revolutionise our approach to complex problem solving and enable us to seize new opportunities in the fields of sensing, timing, imaging, and communications.

Thats according to the UK National Quantum Strategy, which then highlights the associated threats to cryptography and the means by which we protect and secure our digital capabilities.

This formed the backdrop for the recent inaugural Quantum Computing (QC) Fair for Defence, which IBM hosted in collaboration with RAF Digital. 100+ delegates from across Defence, academia and industry came together to dive into the world of Quantum Computing, learn from experiences across government and other sectors, explore use cases and develop ideas and next steps.

Despite the theory of quantum computers advancing in the 1980s and 1990s, it's with recent industry breakthroughs that QC begins to move from the labs into the world of Defence and business. Applicable across a broad spectrum of industry sectors, QC is important in the world of defence due to its potential to revolutionise cryptography, communication, optimisation, and simulation tasks. The development of quantum-resistant cryptography will become crucial for maintaining secure defence communications in the future, which is reflected in the UK National Quantum Strategy that looks to establish the UK as a leader in the field.

Recognising the growing opportunities to examine the potential of QC, RAF Digital joined forces with IBM to raise awareness across the RAF and the broader Defence community. As a leading organisation in the field of quantum technologies, IBM was recently announced as a partner to the National Quantum Computing Centre (NQCC), with a remit to support organisations in understanding and applying the power of QC and to provide access to its QC capabilities. This made it ideally placed to deliver two Quantum 101 awareness training sessions to 40 RAF technical experts and senior leaders. Spurred on by the enthusiastic reception, IBM also organised a Quantum Computing Fair for Defence at its Innovation suite in London.

The Fair aimed to catalyse the formation of the Defence Quantum Computing Community and progress thinking about how QC could be applied within the Defence context, amplifying our understanding of the UKs quantum computing capabilities and intent.

I am hugely grateful to IBM for hosting the Fair and to all those who attended. Without doubt, this event has energised discussions about how to exploit such technologies, both to advance Defence capabilities and in support of the broader UK strategy. As Quantum forges towards maturity, the MoD has the opportunity to access Quantum Computing expertise and services, grow skills, and develop use cases; we now have an identified community of interest who can collaborate to formalise our approach in anticipation of what this technology will bring."

Group Captain Ramsden AH RAF Digital Capability

The immersive and interactive day comprised of presentations from leading figures across government, industry, and academia, along with workshops hosted by IBMs network of Quantum Ambassadors and a discussion panel with each of the Defence delegations represented. Rachel Maze, DSIT, outlined the 10-year vision of the UK National Quantum Strategy to build UK to be a world leading quantum-enabled economy by 2033. Geoff Barnes, NQCC, described their exciting work, such as developing a prototype for an intermediate scale full-stack quantum computer. Chris Moore Bick, DST, shared information about the recent refresh of the Defence Command paper. Dr. Phillip Intallura, HSBC, presented how HSBC uses QC to enhance cyber-resilience and then Dominic OBrien, Quantum Computing and Simulation Hub, Oxford, showed how the Hub is now a vibrant network with 17 academic and 28 industrial partners.

Dr. Arif Mustafa, RAF Director Digital, hosted a stimulating panel discussion that demonstrated the value of collaboration in QC and generated valuable insights, with interactive break-out workshops exploring topics such as QC use cases for Defence, programming a Quantum Computer, building a QC workforce and Quantum Safe for Defence.

It was a real pleasure to be able to work with the RAF Digital team deliver the Quantum Computing Fair, an event designed by Defence for Defence, and we are very grateful to all speakers and delegates. With engaged representation and lively debate throughout the day, the main objective to catalyse the cohering of Defences Quantum Computing Community has been surely met. IBM is committed to helping make the NQCC the focus for the adoption of QC by Government and extending its education and training resources to accelerate upskilling in key sectors. We look forward to continuing to work with Defence as it explores and exploits the potential QC represents.

Ed Gillet IBM

View post:
Quantum Computing Fair: Shaping the future world of Defence - Royal Air Force

A device called a quantum drum may serve as "a crucial piece in the very foundation for the Internet of the future with quantum speed and quantum security", says Mads Bjerregaard Kristensen, postdoc from the Niels Bohr Institute in a new research piece. The original research paper has an official briefing available for free on Phys.org, and can be found published in full in the Physical Review Letters journal for a subscription fee.

One key issue with quantum computing and sending quantum data ("qubits") over long distances is the difficulty of maintaining data in a fragile quantum state where losing data or "decohering" becomes a much higher risk. Using a quantum drum at steps along the chain can prevent this data decoherence from occurring, enabling longer and even potentially global communication distances.

The current record for sending qubits over a long distance is held by China and Russia, and is about 3,800 km with only encryption keys sent as quantum data. The standard wired qubit transmission range is roughly 1000 kilometers before loss of photons ruins the data. Quantum drums could potentially address this limitation.

How does a 'quantum drum' work? In a similar manner to how existing digital bits can be converted into just about anything (sound, video, etc.), qubits can be converted as well. However, qubits require a level of precision literally imperceivable to the human eye, so converting qubits without data loss is quite difficult. The quantum drum seems like a potential answer. Its ceramic glass-esque membrane was shown to be capable of maintaining quantum states as it vibrates with stored quantum information.

Another important purpose served by these quantum drums is security. Were we to start transferring information between quantum computers over the standard Internet, it would inherit the same insecurities as our existing standards. That's because it would need to be converted to standard bits and bytes, which could become essentially free to decode in the not-so-distant quantum future.

By finding a quantum storage medium that doesn't lose any data and allows information to be transferred over much longer distances, the vision of a worthwhile "Quantum Internet" begins to manifest as a real possibility, and not simply the optimism of quantum computing researchers.

Quantum computing research continues to be a major area of interest, often with highly technical discussions and details on the technology. A research paper on quantum drums and their potential of course doesn't mean that this technique will prove to be commercially viable. Still, every little step forward creates new opportunities for our seemingly inevitable quantum-powered future.

Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.

Originally posted here:
Researchers create 'quantum drums' to store qubits one step closer to groundbreaking internet speed and security - Tom's Hardware

Fintech startups and even incumbent banks continue to explore ways to leverage widely popular artificial intelligence for a host of tasks.

This includes producing and personalizing policy documents, the extraction of information from documents, and communication with customers. AI could be tasked to work with big data, which banks have plenty of, with generative AI also being put to work. There are concerns, however, about AI potentially introducing hallucinations into processes as well as the potential for bad actors to use AI to assail the security of banks and smaller fintechs.

The risks could be further compounded if quantum-powered AI, a potential future tech tag team, gets into the wrong hands -- a nightmare scenario where current encryption protection might be at risk of becoming vulnerable.

In the latest episode of DOS Wont Hunt, Doug Hathaway, vice president of engineering with Versapay; Prashant Kelker, chief strategy officer and partner with ISG; and Sitaram Iyer, senior director of cloud native solutions with Venafi discuss ways innovations that could transform fintech might also require conversations about guardrails and safeguards as technologies converge. Though quantum computing is still down the road, AI is making moves here and now, including in fintech.

Related:AI, Bitcoin, and Distilled Spirits at New York Fintech Week

Listen to the full podcast here.

More here:
AI and Quantum Computing: High Risks or Big Boons to Fintech? - InformationWeek

One lonely supportera reformed Trotskyist with a hard-luck story and a Jan. 6 historystood outside Manhattan Criminal Court as Donald Trump arrived for the second day of his trial on Monday morning.

It was quite a contrast from the scene a day earlier: about 50 MAGA fans waving flags and a 20-person anti-Trump contingent marching down the street. And even that was probably a letdown for the ex-president who loves crowds, and loves to overestimate them.

Gary Phaneuf, 68, didnt even have any reporters talking to him, except for The Daily Beast. He stood in a specially designated protest area across from the entrance to 100 Centre Street, wearing a New York baseball cap and carrying a Trump 2024: Take America Back banner.

People give me 20 bucks for walking around with this, he said proudly, then added, with a tinge of regret: I wish I didn't need the money, but thats a long story.

Phaneuf entertained himself by cracking jokes at passersby and occasionally leading a one-man chant of Fight! Fight! Fight for Trump! and Tara Reade! Say her name!a reference to the woman who claims Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. (Biden denies the allegations.)

I got pissed off, Phaneuf said of his motivation for being there on Day 2 of jury selection.

I was just watching like everyone else until Tish James pulled her stunt with all that money, he added. That was highway robbery.

Donald Trump loves a crowd. He didnt get one on Tuesday.

James, the New York attorney general, won a $450 million judgment against Trump and his company earlier this year for fraudulently inflating his net worth for personal gain. The facts of the case, and the department charging it, are completely separate from the criminal case underway this week, which was brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and accuses Trump of covering up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Why did Phaneuf think that he was the only one who could be bothered to show support on a gloriously sunny day?

People like to stay in their comfort zone, he theorized. And a lot of people are lazy.

Phaneuf, by his account, is anything but lazy. The Staten Island native said he worked as a history teacher and when that fell throughIts a long story, me and the Board of Ed, he saidany odd job he could find, from shipyards to selling souvenirs on the Brooklyn Bridge.

You name it, Ive done it, he boasted.

But what takes up most of his time these days is protesting. Phaneuf is a fixture in his Staten Island neighborhood, demonstrating against COVID lockdowns and former Mayor Bill De Blasios planned closure of Rikers Island.

On Jan. 6, 2021, he was arrested for a curfew violation after he traveled to Washington, D.C., to protest President Joe Bidens election, which landed him in the pages of The New York Times.

Theyre trying to figure out, Who are the ring leaders? so they pointed a finger at me, he griped. Asked whether he was a ringleader, he smiled conspiratorially and asked: Was I?

Phaneuf volunteered that he used to protest just as avidly for the other side. In 2010, he was escorted out of a New York Landmarks Commission hearing for rowdily demonstrating in favor of a proposed mosque being built near Ground Zero; a year later, he was one of five protesters interviewed by The New Yorker about their participation in Occupy Wall Street. In 2014, he marched against the death of Eric Garner at the hands of a Staten Island cop.

And, he admitted sheepishly, he voted for Barack Obama twice.

I used to be a Trotskyist, he said with a shrug.

Another Trump supporter, who declined to give his name, arrived as Phaneuf was speaking to The Daily Beast and said hed seen him get arrested and hauled away from other pro-Trump rallies. It did not seem that such drama was in the cards on Tuesday. By afternoon, as a handful of other protesters trickled in, Phaneuf was still there, napping on a park bench, his Trump 2024 banner resting beneath him.

More:
The One Dude Who Showed Up for Trump Trial Day 2 Voted for ObamaTwice - The Daily Beast

On April 8, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its latest opinion that consciously shielded from any judicial oversight the construction of the Obama Presidential Center in historic Jackson Park.

The opinion guts the guarantee of an 1869 grant from the Illinois legislature providing that the land encompassing Jackson Park would be held, managed and controlled by the (Park Commission) as a public park, for the recreation, health, and benefit of the public, and free to all persons forever, by making three fatal mistakes to insulate the project from all substantive review.

First, the initial creation of a 99-year use agreement for the center flatly violates the public trust doctrine, which prohibits the outright transfer of public lands to private institutions if fair value is not received in return. Transferring possession of the site required that the center has in hand the money both to build and maintain the property. The foundation had neither when it promptly cut down hundreds of mature trees in August 2021 in a project that is late and over budget.

Instead of building the center near underserved communities west of Washington Park the foundation and the city entered a sweetheart deal that delegated to the foundation the ability to pick the Jackson Park site under a 99-year lease of 19.3 acres of prime parkland for $10, an obvious giveaway of public trust lands. How? By relabeling the original lease as a use agreement to avoid judicial scrutiny. The opinion ignores that blatant subterfuge by noting that the title to the center remains with the city, even though virtually 100% of the economic benefits went to the foundation in violation of the terms of the 1869 grant.

How? By engaging in intellectual jiujitsu to conclude that the public was the real beneficiary of a deal whose every detail was dictated by the foundation. The Illinois Supreme Court has long insisted that the public trust doctrine only has meaning and vitality if members of the public have standing to enforce it. But the court sidestepped meaningful review by stating that the citys 2015 ordinance for the center and the 2016 Illinois Museum Act blessed the deal such that it could evade all constitutional constraints that bind the political branches.

Second, matters only get worse when looking at the 2019 Master Agreement between the city and the foundation, which conditioned transfer of that site to the foundation only if it had received enough money for construction and had an endowment for operation and maintenance by the foundation. As of August 2021, the cost of the project ballooned to over $700 million.

At that time, the foundation had received far less than $700 million dedicated to construction. It also indulged in a unique accounting practice that treated a 2021 $1 million contribution as fully endowing that fund, with further fundraising down the road. When the plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to challenge these maneuvers, the district court took less than a day to throw their case out, claiming that the city and foundations master agreement did not allow any third party to sue.

The problem was that the plaintiffs did not sue on the contract but explicitly as taxpayers for the waste of public assets. The opinions discussion of the district courts hurried decision mangled the key precedent which flatly holds that a taxpayer can enjoin the misuse of public funds, based upon taxpayers ownership of such funds and their liability to replenish the public treasury for the deficiency caused by misappropriation thereof. Thus the Seventh Circuit put the kibosh on any citizens effort to open the books to supply public transparency.

Third, on environmental issues, the federal government initially said that the designated project was building the center in Jackson Park with the attendant road and other adjustments. The early reviews pinpointed negative historic, aesthetic and environmental impacts on Frederick Law Olmsteds priceless jewel. But the opinion ignored both Olmsted and the massive destruction of roads, trees and habitat by refusing to treat them as a major federal action causing significant harm that requires a full-scale environmental impact review. Instead, the opinion claimed that building the center was a local initiative because the federal government could not dictate where the center could be built or how it should be managed. Thus, the statutes became dead letters by ignoring the simple fact that the federal government is always allowed to effectively block unsuitable projects, even if it cannot instruct the city whether to abandon or relocate the project.

Worse, the opinion abjectly deferred to the city and agency decisions by ignoring the Supreme Courts canonical decision in Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) that requires the center to face a thorough, probing, in-depth review for which a project can be approved only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the land.

Sadly, 17 months after the initial critical reviews, the federal agencies and the city, without notice or further hearings, redefined the project so that it no longer covered building the center, but only covered fixing the roadwork in and around Jackson Park. That sleight of hand was adopted by the opinion to block any review of alternatives to the location of the center.

The opinion opens by saying its current decision represents, we hope, the final installment in litigation that began in 2018. Sorry. Not so long as such decisions fail to protect the community, the environment, and block transparency of such transactions.

Richard A. Epstein is a professor at NYU Law School and senior lecturer the University of Chicago. Michael Rachlis is a partner in the Chicago law firm of Rachlis Duff & Peel, LLC. They represent Protect Our Parks Inc. and the other plaintiffs in the litigation against the Obama Presidential Center.

Read the original:
Lawyers: Why further litigation is sadly necessary on Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park - Chicago Tribune