Daily Archives: May 6, 2017

Quantum computing: A simple introduction – Explain that Stuff

Posted: May 6, 2017 at 4:07 am

by Chris Woodford. Last updated: February 18, 2017.

How can you get more and more out of less and less? The smaller computers get, the more powerful they seem to become: there's more number-crunching ability in a 21st-century cellphone than you'd have found in a room-sized, military computer 50 years ago. Yet, despite such amazing advances, there are still plenty of complex problems that are beyond the reach of even the world's most powerful computersand there's no guarantee we'll ever be able to tackle them. One problem is that the basic switching and memory units of computers, known as transistors, are now approaching the point where they'll soon be as small as individual atoms. If we want computers that are smaller and more powerful than today's, we'll soon need to do our computing in a radically different way. Entering the realm of atoms opens up powerful new possibilities in the shape of quantum computing, with processors that could work millions of times faster than the ones we use today. Sounds amazing, but the trouble is that quantum computing is hugely more complex than traditional computing and operates in the Alice in Wonderland world of quantum physics, where the "classical," sensible, everyday laws of physics no longer apply. What is quantum computing and how does it work? Let's take a closer look!

Photo: Quantum computing means storing and processing information using individual atoms, ions, electrons, or photons. On the plus side, this opens up the possibility of faster computers, but the drawback is the greater complexity of designing computers that can operate in the weird world of quantum physics. Photo courtesy of US Department of Energy.

You probably think of a computer as a neat little gadget that sits on your lap and lets you send emails, shop online, chat to your friends, or play gamesbut it's much more and much less than that. It's more, because it's a completely general-purpose machine: you can make it do virtually anything you like. It's less, because inside it's little more than an extremely basic calculator, following a prearranged set of instructions called a program. Like the Wizard of Oz, the amazing things you see in front of you conceal some pretty mundane stuff under the covers.

Photo: This is what one transistor from a typical radio circuit board looks like. In computers, the transistors are much smaller than this and millions of them are packaged together onto microchips.

Conventional computers have two tricks that they do really well: they can store numbers in memory and they can process stored numbers with simple mathematical operations (like add and subtract). They can do more complex things by stringing together the simple operations into a series called an algorithm (multiplying can be done as a series of additions, for example). Both of a computer's key tricksstorage and processingare accomplished using switches called transistors, which are like microscopic versions of the switches you have on your wall for turning on and off the lights. A transistor can either be on or off, just as a light can either be lit or unlit. If it's on, we can use a transistor to store a number one (1); if it's off, it stores a number zero (0). Long strings of ones and zeros can be used to store any number, letter, or symbol using a code based on binary (so computers store an upper-case letter A as 1000001 and a lower-case one as 01100001). Each of the zeros or ones is called a binary digit (or bit) and, with a string of eight bits, you can store 255 different characters (such as A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and most common symbols). Computers calculate by using circuits called logic gates, which are made from a number of transistors connected together. Logic gates compare patterns of bits, stored in temporary memories called registers, and then turn them into new patterns of bitsand that's the computer equivalent of what our human brains would call addition, subtraction, or multiplication. In physical terms, the algorithm that performs a particular calculation takes the form of an electronic circuit made from a number of logic gates, with the output from one gate feeding in as the input to the next.

The trouble with conventional computers is that they depend on conventional transistors. This might not sound like a problem if you go by the amazing progress made in electronics over the last few decades. When the transistor was invented, back in 1947, the switch it replaced (which was called the vacuum tube) was about as big as one of your thumbs. Now, a state-of-the-art microprocessor (single-chip computer) packs hundreds of millions (and up to two billion) transistors onto a chip of silicon the size of your fingernail! Chips like these, which are called integrated circuits, are an incredible feat of miniaturization. Back in the 1960s, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore realized that the power of computers doubles roughly 18 monthsand it's been doing so ever since. This apparently unshakeable trend is known as Moore's Law.

Photo: This memory chip from a typical USB stick contains an integrated circuit that can store 512 megabytes of data. That's roughly 500 million characters (536,870,912 to be exact), each of which needs eight binary digitsso we're talking about 4 billion (4,000 million) transistors in all (4,294,967,296 if you're being picky) packed into an area the size of a postage stamp!

It sounds amazing, and it is, but it misses the point. The more information you need to store, the more binary ones and zerosand transistorsyou need to do it. Since most conventional computers can only do one thing at a time, the more complex the problem you want them to solve, the more steps they'll need to take and the longer they'll need to do it. Some computing problems are so complex that they need more computing power and time than any modern machine could reasonably supply; computer scientists call those intractable problems.

As Moore's Law advances, so the number of intractable problems diminishes: computers get more powerful and we can do more with them. The trouble is, transistors are just about as small as we can make them: we're getting to the point where the laws of physics seem likely to put a stop to Moore's Law. Unfortunately, there are still hugely difficult computing problems we can't tackle because even the most powerful computers find them intractable. That's one of the reasons why people are now getting interested in quantum computing.

Quantum theory is the branch of physics that deals with the world of atoms and the smaller (subatomic) particles inside them. You might think atoms behave the same way as everything else in the world, in their own tiny little waybut that's not true: on the atomic scale, the rules change and the "classical" laws of physics we take for granted in our everyday world no longer automatically apply. As Richard P. Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, once put it: "Things on a very small scale behave like nothing you have any direct experience about... or like anything that you have ever seen." (Six Easy Pieces, p116.)

If you've studied light, you may already know a bit about quantum theory. You might know that a beam of light sometimes behaves as though it's made up of particles (like a steady stream of cannonballs), and sometimes as though it's waves of energy rippling through space (a bit like waves on the sea). That's called wave-particle duality and it's one of the ideas that comes to us from quantum theory. It's hard to grasp that something can be two things at oncea particle and a wavebecause it's totally alien to our everyday experience: a car is not simultaneously a bicycle and a bus. In quantum theory, however, that's just the kind of crazy thing that can happen. The most striking example of this is the baffling riddle known as Schrdinger's cat. Briefly, in the weird world of quantum theory, we can imagine a situation where something like a cat could be alive and dead at the same time!

What does all this have to do with computers? Suppose we keep on pushing Moore's Lawkeep on making transistors smaller until they get to the point where they obey not the ordinary laws of physics (like old-style transistors) but the more bizarre laws of quantum mechanics. The question is whether computers designed this way can do things our conventional computers can't. If we can predict mathematically that they might be able to, can we actually make them work like that in practice?

People have been asking those questions for several decades. Among the first were IBM research physicists Rolf Landauer and Charles H. Bennett. Landauer opened the door for quantum computing in the 1960s when he proposed that information is a physical entity that could be manipulated according to the laws of physics. One important consequence of this is that computers waste energy manipulating the bits inside them (which is partly why computers use so much energy and get so hot, even though they appear to be doing not very much at all). In the 1970s, building on Landauer's work, Bennett showed how a computer could circumvent this problem by working in a "reversible" way, implying that a quantum computer could carry out massively complex computations without using massive amounts of energy. In 1981, physicist Paul Benioff from Argonne National Laboratory tried to envisage a basic machine that would work in a similar way to an ordinary computer but according to the principles of quantum physics. The following year, Richard Feynman sketched out roughly how a machine using quantum principles could carry out basic computations. A few years later, Oxford University's David Deutsch (one of the leading lights in quantum computing) outlined the theoretical basis of a quantum computer in more detail. How did these great scientists imagine that quantum computers might work?

The key features of an ordinary computerbits, registers, logic gates, algorithms, and so onhave analogous features in a quantum computer. Instead of bits, a quantum computer has quantum bits or qubits, which work in a particularly intriguing way. Where a bit can store either a zero or a 1, a qubit can store a zero, a one, both zero and one, or an infinite number of values in betweenand be in multiple states (store multiple values) at the same time! If that sounds confusing, think back to light being a particle and a wave at the same time, Schrdinger's cat being alive and dead, or a car being a bicycle and a bus. A gentler way to think of the numbers qubits store is through the physics concept of superposition (where two waves add to make a third one that contains both of the originals). If you blow on something like a flute, the pipe fills up with a standing wave: a wave made up of a fundamental frequency (the basic note you're playing) and lots of overtones or harmonics (higher-frequency multiples of the fundamental). The wave inside the pipe contains all these waves simultaneously: they're added together to make a combined wave that includes them all. Qubits use superposition to represent multiple states (multiple numeric values) simultaneously in a similar way.

Just as a quantum computer can store multiple numbers at once, so it can process them simultaneously. Instead of working in serial (doing a series of things one at a time in a sequence), it can work in parallel (doing multiple things at the same time). Only when you try to find out what state it's actually in at any given moment (by measuring it, in other words) does it "collapse" into one of its possible statesand that gives you the answer to your problem. Estimates suggest a quantum computer's ability to work in parallel would make it millions of times faster than any conventional computer... if only we could build it! So how would we do that?

In reality, qubits would have to be stored by atoms, ions (atoms with too many or too few electrons) or even smaller things such as electrons and photons (energy packets), so a quantum computer would be almost like a table-top version of the kind of particle physics experiments they do at Fermilab or CERN! Now you wouldn't be racing particles round giant loops and smashing them together, but you would need mechanisms for containing atoms, ions, or subatomic particles, for putting them into certain states (so you can store information), knocking them into other states (so you can make them process information), and figuring out what their states are after particular operations have been performed.

Photo: A single atom can be trapped in an optical cavitythe space between mirrorsand controlled by precise pulses from laser beams.

In practice, there are lots of possible ways of containing atoms and changing their states using laser beams, electromagnetic fields, radio waves, and an assortment of other techniques. One method is to make qubits using quantum dots, which are nanoscopically tiny particles of semiconductors inside which individual charge carriers, electrons and holes (missing electrons), can be controlled. Another method makes qubits from what are called ion traps: you add or take away electrons from an atom to make an ion, hold it steady in a kind of laser spotlight (so it's locked in place like a nanoscopic rabbit dancing in a very bright headlight), and then flip it into different states with laser pulses. In another technique, the qubits are photons inside optical cavities (spaces between extremely tiny mirrors). Don't worry if you don't understand; not many people do! Since the entire field of quantum computing is still largely abstract and theoretical, the only thing we really need to know is that qubits are stored by atoms or other quantum-scale particles that can exist in different states and be switched between them.

Although people often assume that quantum computers must automatically be better than conventional ones, that's by no means certain. So far, just about the only thing we know for certain that a quantum computer could do better than a normal one is factorisation: finding two unknown prime numbers that, when multiplied together, give a third, known number. In 1994, while working at Bell Laboratories, mathematician Peter Shor demonstrated an algorithm that a quantum computer could follow to find the "prime factors" of a large number, which would speed up the problem enormously. Shor's algorithm really excited interest in quantum computing because virtually every modern computer (and every secure, online shopping and banking website) uses public-key encryption technology based on the virtual impossibility of finding prime factors quickly (it is, in other words, essentially an "intractable" computer problem). If quantum computers could indeed factor large numbers quickly, today's online security could be rendered obsolete at a stroke.

Does that mean quantum computers are better than conventional ones? Not exactly. Apart from Shor's algorithm, and a search method called Grover's algorithm, hardly any other algorithms have been discovered that would be better performed by quantum methods. Given enough time and computing power, conventional computers should still be able to solve any problem that quantum computers could solve, eventually. In other words, it remains to be proven that quantum computers are generally superior to conventional ones, especially given the difficulties of actually building them. Who knows how conventional computers might advance in the next 50 years, potentially making the idea of quantum computers irrelevantand even absurd.

Photo: Quantum dots are probably best known as colorful nanoscale crystals, but they can also be used as qubits in quantum computers). Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratory.

Three decades after they were first proposed, quantum computers remain largely theoretical. Even so, there's been some encouraging progress toward realizing a quantum machine. There were two impressive breakthroughs in 2000. First, Isaac Chuang (now an MIT professor, but then working at IBM's Almaden Research Center) used five fluorine atoms to make a crude, five-qubit quantum computer. The same year, researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory figured out how to make a seven-qubit machine using a drop of liquid. Five years later, researchers at the University of Innsbruck added an extra qubit and produced the first quantum computer that could manipulate a qubyte (eight qubits).

These were tentative but important first steps. Over the next few years, researchers announced more ambitious experiments, adding progressively greater numbers of qubits. By 2011, a pioneering Canadian company called D-Wave Systems announced in Nature that it had produced a 128-qubit machine. Thee years later, Google announced that it was hiring a team of academics (including University of California at Santa Barbara physicist John Martinis) to develop its own quantum computers based on D-Wave's approach. In March 2015, the Google team announced they were "a step closer to quantum computation," having developed a new way for qubits to detect and protect against errors. In 2016, MIT's Isaac Chang and scientists from the University of Innsbruck unveiled a five-qubit, ion-trap quantum computer that could calculate the factors of 15; one day, a scaled-up version of this machine might evolve into the long-promised, fully fledged encryption buster! There's no doubt that these are hugely important advances. Even so, it's very early days for the whole fieldand most researchers agree that we're unlikely to see practical quantum computers appearing for many yearsperhaps even decades.

View original post here:

Quantum computing: A simple introduction - Explain that Stuff

Posted in Quantum Computing | Comments Off on Quantum computing: A simple introduction – Explain that Stuff

China adds a quantum computer to high-performance computing arsenal – PCWorld

Posted: at 4:07 am

Thank you

Your message has been sent.

There was an error emailing this page.

China already has the world's fastest supercomputer and has now built a crude quantum computer that could outpace today's PCs and servers.

Quantum computers have already been built by companies like IBM and D-Wave, but Chinese researchers have taken a different approach. They are introducing quantum computing using multiple photons, which could provide a superior way to calculate compared to today's computers.

The Chinese quantum computing architecture allows forfive-photonsampling and entanglement. It's an improvement over previous experiments involving single-photon sourcing, up to 24,000 times faster, the researchers claimed.

The Chinese researchers have built components required for Boson sampling, which has been theorized for a long time and is considered an easy way to build a quantum computer. The architecture built by the Chinese can include a large number of photons, which increases the speed and scale of computing.

China is strengthening its technology arsenal in an effort to be self-sufficient. China's homegrown chip powers TaihuLight, the world's fastest computer.

In 2014, China said it would spend US$150 billion on semiconductor development so that PCs and mobile devices would convert to homegrown chips. Afraid that low-cost Chinese chips will flood the market, the U.S. earlier this year accused China of rigging the semiconductor market to its advantage.

It's not clear yet if a quantum computer is on China's national agenda. But China's rapid progress of technology is worrying countries like the U.S. A superfast quantum computer could enhance the country's progress in areas like weapons development, in which high-performance computers are key.

But there's a long way to go before China builds its first full-fledged quantum computer. The prototype quantum computer is good for specific uses but is not designed to be a universal quantum computer that can run any task.

The research behind quantum computers is gaining steam as PCs and servers reach their limit. It's becoming difficult to shrink chips to smaller geometries, which could upset the cycle of reducing costs of computers while boosting speeds.

If they deliver on their promise, quantum computers will drive computing into the future. They are fundamentally different from computers used today.

Bits on todays computers are stored as ones or zeros, while quantum computers rely on qubits, also called quantum bits. Qubits can achieve various states, including holding a one and zero simultaneously, and those states can multiply.

The parallelism allows qubits to do more calculations simultaneously. However, qubits are considered fragile and highly unstable, and can easily breakdown during entanglement, a technical term for when qubits interact. A breakdown could bring instability to a computing process.

The Chinese quantum computer has a photon device based on quantum dots, demultiplexers, photonic circuits, and detectors.

There are multiple ways to build a quantum computer, including via superconducting qubits, which is the building block for D-Wave Systems' systems. Like the Chinese system, D-Wave's quantum annealing method is another easy way to build a quantum computer but is not considered ideal for a universal quantum computer.

IBM already has a 5-qubit quantum computer that is available via the cloud. It is now chasing a universal quantum computer using superconducting qubitsbut has a different gating model to stabilize systems. Microsoft is trying to chase a new quantum computer based on a new topography and a yet-undiscovered particle called non-abelian anyons.

In a bid to build computers of the future, China has also built a neuromorphic chip called Darwin.

Excerpt from:

China adds a quantum computer to high-performance computing arsenal - PCWorld

Posted in Quantum Computing | Comments Off on China adds a quantum computer to high-performance computing arsenal – PCWorld

All Major TV Networks Block Trump’s ‘Fake News’ Ad – Variety

Posted: at 4:06 am


Variety
All Major TV Networks Block Trump's 'Fake News' Ad
Variety
The major television networks have all decided not to run Donald Trump's so-called fake news ad, according to a statement released by his daughter-in-law Lara Trump. Lara, an adviser on Trump's 2020 campaign, called the rejection a chilling ...
Watch The Donald Trump Ad The Mainstream Media Don't Want You To SeeThe Federalist

all 37 news articles »

Continue reading here:

All Major TV Networks Block Trump's 'Fake News' Ad - Variety

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on All Major TV Networks Block Trump’s ‘Fake News’ Ad – Variety

Donald Trump’s Tweets of the Week: Blasting North Korea, Shading the Democrats, Winning Bigly – Newsweek

Posted: at 4:06 am

It's been another doozy of a week in Washington, D.C. Sometimes, its almost impossible to keep up with it all, from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearingon Russian interference in the 2016 election, to a slew of executive orders being delivered from the new White House administration, to the new health care bill. Even reporters covering the ongoings of the capital are finding it difficult to follow all of the developments.

And yet, President Donald Trump, the man who has managed to turn the "politics as usual"sentiment upside-down, continues to find time to write his supporters, critics and 28 million Twitter followers a quick guide to his days in the Oval Office and beyondwhether theyre asking for it or not.

Related: New site lets you donate to causes Trump hates every time he tweets

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Trump's tweets provide more than just a SparkNotes-stylebreakdown of the week, however: Theyre the best glimpse the American public has inside the presidents headspace, as he maintains his tendency to shoot from the hip after 100 days in office. His Twitter account also serves as a catalogof what the leader of the free world was focused on during global crisesand crucial moments in his own presidency.

An anti-Trump demonstrator interacts with Trump supporters in New York City on May 4. Reuters

Lets walk through the presidents thoughts and activities this week via his personal Twitter account:

The president spoke of North Korea only once this week on hisTwitter account, when he blasted the oppressive regime for its failed weekend missile test launch. Trump also managed to praise Chinese President Xi Jinping within the same 140 characters, saying the nation "disrespected the wishes of China [and]its highly respected president."

Trump (once again) targeted the "mainstream (FAKE) media"for its coverage of his first 100 days in office, claiming most news networks were refusing to acknowledge the bevy of executive orders he had signed in histenure as president. The president retweeted a hot take from Foxs Tucker Carlson, posted to the Fox Nation Twitter account, claiming the Democrats are using the Russian cyberattacks on the election as a political tool to make the president less popular.

The president wants you to know he beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. He won. Bigly. Got it?

Trump celebrated a "big win"for the Republican Party after a repeal-and-replacebill to begin the process of overturning former President Barack Obamas landmark legislation, the Affordable Care Act, barely scraped through the House.

The Senate won't vote on the congressional billsenators plan on making their own version instead. But Trumps Twitter was still ablaze with victory tweets. (Oh yeah, and Obamacare still sucks, according to Trump.)

Trump signed acontroversial religious liberty orderthis week with little support from either party, but a whole lot of love from his baseand the man who hasbeen by his side through it all: Vice President Mike Pence. The VP has reportedly been pushing for this order to be signed into law ever since the pair took office. It aims to provide legal protectionfor religious groups claiming exceptions to Obamacare mandatesand undermines enforcement of legislation that prevents nonprofits from explicitpolitical activity.

Notice the #ICYMI hashtag Trump expertly used to remind his followers he's workingor at least signing off on ordersthroughout the weekend.

You'd think a president wouldn't have enough time to compose snarky, shady tweets toward his critics in a day filled with controversy, big meetings, executive order signings, photo opportunities and negotiations on crucial legislation. You'd be wrong.

Trump managed to shade the Democrats nearly every single day of the week in some fashion. Trump seems to have no plans to tone down his public persona, for better or worse, with his lowapproval ratings largely unchanged after his busy week.

(Oh yeah, and Andrew Jackson is his new favorite president, since Trump says Jackson could have stopped the American civil war. See you next week.)

See more here:

Donald Trump's Tweets of the Week: Blasting North Korea, Shading the Democrats, Winning Bigly - Newsweek

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Tweets of the Week: Blasting North Korea, Shading the Democrats, Winning Bigly – Newsweek

How Trump won another unlikely victory – CNN

Posted: at 4:06 am

"Let's get this f***ing thing done!" former combat fighter pilot, Air Force Colonel and Arizona Rep. Martha McSally exhorted her colleagues in a private pre-vote pep rally on Capitol Hill, as House Republicans entrusted their futures to fate and agreed to vote to repeal Obamacare.

Nearby, House Speaker Paul Ryan was "giddy," said one colleague, sensing the narrowest of reputation-saving wins after a trial by political fire. Down Pennsylvania Avenue, as Thursday's vote neared, President Donald Trump settled in front of a TV, his Twitter account poised, but slipping into the unusual state of calm that aides say envelops the hyperactive commander-in-chief when moments of history beckon.

Despite the Trump and GOP victory rally at the White House, the past few months are just an appetizer as the bill goes to the Senate and members head home to their constituents. There will be more rounds of Republican strife and debates over arcane parliamentary procedure with a new cast of lawmakers. Vice President Mike Pence -- who keeps Capitol Police officers busy with his frequent visits -- will spend more time in his Hill office. We'll see a new report of how the bill will impact Americans. The tweets will undoubtedly continue.

This article relates behind-the-scenes negotiations and the emotional and political storm that raged on Capitol Hill as the House GOP belatedly, but triumphantly, honored a promise to its voters that it first made seven years ago and has renewed many times since.

Based on dozens of conversations with Republican and Democratic leaders, lawmakers and political aides by CNN's teams on Capitol Hill and in the White House, it reveals how House GOP members finally steeled themselves to overcome the infighting and inaction that tarnished Trump's First 100 Days.

It is also the story of how the GOP decided that the price of inaction now was greater than the risk of passing a bill that even many Senate Republicans believe is deeply flawed.

"I think people in the House just simply wanted to get a bill out of the House and hoped that the Senate did something with it," said Rep. Charlie Dent, one of 20 Republicans who voted no.

But for those on the other side, victory tastes sweet.

"This is a great plan," Trump said at the White House, seemingly looking forward to the next round. "I actually think it will get even better. This is a repeal and replace of Obamacare. Make no mistake about it."

Flash back six weeks and it was all so different. After pulling an earlier version of the bill, a defeated Ryan admitted that Obamacare was "the law of the land," and that the GOP, for now, had missed its moment.

But health care reform still had a faint pulse.

A former opponent of the House bill, Sen. Rand Paul, wearing a Duke baseball cap from his alma mater, surprised the White House press pool after returning from golf with Trump on April 2, saying a deal was getting closer.

The President tweeted that "talks on Repealing and Replacing ObamaCare are, and have been, going on, and will continue until such time as a deal is hopefully struck."

It seemed like Trumpian bluster.

Ryan was also quietly regrouping. He let the dust settle amid humiliating questions about his leadership. Critics highlighted his apparently misfiring relationship with Trump.

In reality, that impression was premature. The two men -- opposites in temperament and style -- grew increasingly close in the foxhole in the weeks to come.

Even so, there was no immediate sense among GOP leaders that health care's time had come again. Committee chairs were gung ho to take on tax reform.

But Ryan did encourage members to keep talking about health care. Though optimism had been shattered, a more bottom-up approach was worth a shot. The Wisconsin Republican reasoned that time and rising political pressure on his members were needed to knit party splits before he could try again.

Throughout April they swapped legislative language, finally agreeing on a deal to allow states to seek waivers to weaken several key Obamacare reforms that protect those with pre-existing conditions. But in a concession to moderates, the provision would not apply to those who maintained continuous coverage.

Once what became known as the MacArthur amendment was codified, whip teams set about testing its support in the Republican conference and solidifying the votes of Freedom Caucus members, the senior GOP source said.

The White House was agitating for a vote as a capstone to a barren First 100 Days. A week ago, House leaders decided not to try to ram the bill through just to meet the arbitrary deadline. But despite another perceived failure, the process was "100 percent still alive," one senior GOP aide said.

Questions still lingered about pre-existing conditions -- resulting in Rep. Fred Upton's bombshell announcement that he would vote no, a brick wall that could have again blocked the GOP's efforts.

But after a meeting with the President alongside his colleague Billy Long of Missouri and a guarantee that funding for high risk pools would rise from $5 billion to $8 billion, Upton came on board. Though Democrats and many policy experts say $8 billion is a drop in the bucket of the cash needed to fund high risk pools, Upton's decision was crucial.

"It gave our guys a clear-cut reason to get to yes," one senior GOP aide said.

By Wednesday night, less than 12 hours after the full details emerged of the latest change to a seemingly ever evolving, always-rejected piece of legislation, Republican leaders met in Ryan's office. They didn't have a solid 216 yes votes, aides say. But they were close. Close enough to force the issue.

"It was time -- we felt it was moving in the right direction, but we also knew we'd hit a point of no return," one person directly involved in the process said.

Thursday, it was clear the play had paid off. They were locking in votes. Pledges from the Department of Health and Human Services helped flip two members. Leadership guarantees of future legislation brought along another. Ryan, who generally eschews the hard, one-on-one sell with wavering members, did just that, several times, one source said.

Implicit in all of it was protection --- in the form of supportive GOP groups come campaign time --- that would be there in spades for endangered members who went along, several sources said.

One member in the conference meeting, where colleagues were greeted by the theme tune from "Rocky" and snapshots of General George S. Patton, as well as McSally's rallying call, said the tone of Ryan's message to his troops was simple: "It's time to roll."

Trump waited for the vote in typical style: by tweeting.

"If victorious, Republicans will be having a big press conference at the beautiful Rose Garden of the White House immediately after vote!" he wrote Thursday afternoon.

And after weeks of misfires that exposed his inexperience in wooing Congress, he got his win.

"Coming from a different world, and only being a politician for a short period of time, how am I doing? Am I doing OK? I'm President. Hey, I'm President, do you believe it, right?" he crowed in the Rose Garden.

Months ago many of those beaming Republican leaders behind Trump had not believed it or in him. There had been whispers that Trump's loose tongue revealed his ignorance about what was in the bill and made compromise harder.

But by Thursday afternoon, Trump was pouring praise on Ryan and his crew, and it did seem that, in the President's words, the party had "developed a bond."

A White House official told CNN that Trump had kept up an intense push behind the scenes, ensuring that aides supported MacArthur and Meadows as they sought common ground and tasking HHS Secretary Tom Price with briefing wavering members on Medicaid funding.

He and Ryan swapped notes in multiple late night phone calls.

"The President's been incredibly engaged in this process, particularly over the last several days," deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders said.

For all his ham-fisted interventions, Trump has evolved through the health care process, aides believe. He now knows artificial deadlines cut no ice in Congress.

He's also learned the legislative process is more complex than the business world after running for office proclaiming his deal-making skills would take Washington by storm.

"It's not so cut and dry here," one aide said, explaining Trump's thinking. "There's so many more players involved and everybody has something that they want."

Still, you can't take the businessman out of the President -- he still prizes the personal touch, the person said.

Trump's flexibility likely helped too.

"This president probably has more philosophic dexterity than most of the presidents I've dealt with in the past," said South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford, who voted for the bill. "That makes it a little bit different because typically there is sort of a fixed starting point or a fixed ending point on where an administration might be."

As the votes rolled in, Trump's coterie gathered in the dining room off the Oval Office, among them, Pence, Price, Trump's daughter Ivanka, son-in-law Jared Kushner, top Economic Adviser Gary Cohn, adviser Steve Bannon, counselor Kellyanne Conway, press aide Hope Hicks, political aide Dan Scavino and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma.

It felt like election night all over again. "We were all overjoyed and he was very docile, frankly. Very hopeful but not prematurely celebrating. We saw the same thing today," one official said.

While Trump took the plaudits, many players in the drama spoke approvingly of Pence.

Even Dent, who voted against the bill, praised the Vice President's soft sell technique.

"He wanted to work with me. Very civil, very constructive meeting as you would expect from Mike Pence," Dent recalled. "I always get the sense that Mike Pence is the velvet glove, the soft touch. The good cop."

"He knows how to talk to people," he added.

Pence threw himself into the renewed push to pass health care soon after returning from a marathon trip to Asia. He was all over Capitol Hill over the last few days, forming a partnership with White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, who roamed the House floor as the vote went ahead.

Pence's ubiquity did not go unnoticed.

A Capitol Police officer was overheard telling a colleague how he doesn't like the days when Pence is on the Hill because he likes to mingle so many members, the responsibility of protecting him becomes even more intense.

In 2010, then-Vice President Joe Biden called Obamacare a "big f***ing deal. His sentiments were similar, for other reasons, on Thursday.

"Day of shame in Congress. Protections for pre-existing conditions, mental health, maternity care, addiction services -- all gone," Biden tweeted.

Cries of "shame, shame, shame," greeted GOP lawmakers as they walked down the ornate steps on the East Front of the Capitol.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warned the GOP: "You have every provision of this bill tattooed on your forehead. You will glow in the dark on this one."

But all may not be lost yet for the Democrats. The bill must go now to the Senate, and it emerged Thursday that the chamber will only use the House bill as a skeleton before writing its own legislation.

Now, House members are going home, where protesters and raucous town halls certainly await.

There is a feeling of accomplishment, several members acknowledged, that so far is a novelty in the new Republican era. They know what is ahead, and are ready.

"We know the fight that's coming," one senior GOP aide said. "We want that fight."

CNN's Dana Bash, Jeff Zeleny, Jim Acosta, MJ Lee and Athena Jones contributed to this report.

Read the rest here:

How Trump won another unlikely victory - CNN

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on How Trump won another unlikely victory – CNN

FCC to Investigate Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Donald Trump Joke – Variety

Posted: at 4:06 am


Variety
FCC to Investigate Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Donald Trump Joke
Variety
Colbert faced backlash following the Monday night airing of The Late Show, during which he made numerous jokes about Trump during his opening monologue. Among them, he said, The only thing [Trump's] mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's ck ...
Ajit Pai: FCC looking into Colbert's Trump jokeUSA TODAY
FCC to investigate Stephen Colbert over Donald Trump jokeNew York Daily News
Stephen Colbert's crude joke about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to be investigated by FCCTelegraph.co.uk

all 128 news articles »

The rest is here:

FCC to Investigate Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Donald Trump Joke - Variety

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on FCC to Investigate Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Donald Trump Joke – Variety

Donald Trump Deletes Tweet Calling Mahmoud Abbas Meeting ‘an Honor’ – Newsweek

Posted: at 4:06 am

Donald Trump removed a tweet from his personal Twitter account on Thursday in which he said it was an honor to host Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House.

The pair held a joint press conference on Wednesday, trading pleasantries and expressing their shared desire to strike a deal that would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

An honor to host President Mahmoud Abbas at the WH today. Hopefully something terrific could come out [of] it between the Palestinians and Israel, Trump wrote.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Alongside the tweet was a two-minute video that showed Trump meeting Abbas, the president speaking alongside Secretary of State Rex Tillerson about the peace process and shaking hands with the Palestinian leader.

But just 13 hours after being posted, the tweet was removed.

It is not clear whether Trump deleted the tweet because it was too positive a comment about his Palestinian counterpart and therefore risked provoking the ire of the Israelis or because it was missing a word. A similar post on Trumps Facebook page remains in place.

But whether the deletion was a slight against Abbas or an attempt to hide an error, Palestinian officials say the removal is not a good sign.

An official from the Palestine Liberation Organization, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak on the issue, tells Newsweek it could be an indication of whats coming.

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) welcomes Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, after his arrival for a meeting at the White House. Trump deleted a tweet that said it was an "honor" to meet the Palestinian leader. Mark Wilson/Getty

He was referring to the likelihood that Trump would make good on his threat to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelsona key donor to Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuis reportedly increasingly angry about Trumps slow progress on the campaign pledge.

After appearing to put the proposal on the backburner following his January 20 inauguration, Trumps Vice President Mike Pence said Tuesday that the president was still giving serious consideration to the controversial move.

The tweet about Mahmoud Abbas that Donald Trump deleted after his meeting with the Palestinian leader at the White House. Screengrab / Twitter

The president of the United States, as we speak, is giving serious consideration into moving the American embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he said, speaking at an event to celebrate Israels Independence Day.

Read more: Trump says peace in the Middle East is not as difficult as people have thought

It is a move that Arab leaders and members of the U.S. security establishment are concerned will inflame tensions on the Arab street. Muslims view the contested holy site in Jerusalem, which they refer to as the Noble Sanctuary and that Jews call the Temple Mount, as the third most important in Islam. Jews view Jerusalem as its eternal capital and the holy site as the center of their faith.

Moving the embassy would see the U.S. essentially recognize Jerusalem as Israels capital, upturning decades of policy that dictated the status of the city only be decided through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

See the rest here:

Donald Trump Deletes Tweet Calling Mahmoud Abbas Meeting 'an Honor' - Newsweek

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump Deletes Tweet Calling Mahmoud Abbas Meeting ‘an Honor’ – Newsweek

RBI Gets More Power Over Indian Bank NPAs – Bankruptcy An Essential Part Of Market System – Forbes

Posted: at 4:05 am


Forbes
RBI Gets More Power Over Indian Bank NPAs - Bankruptcy An Essential Part Of Market System
Forbes
As I've pointed out before bankruptcy is an essential part of any market based economic system. And as I've also pointed out non-market economic systems do not work. We've thus the insistence that a decent bankruptcy system is essential to the ...
New ordinance empowers RBI to direct banks to initiate insolvency, bankruptcy against NPAsTimes Now

all 298 news articles »

View post:

RBI Gets More Power Over Indian Bank NPAs - Bankruptcy An Essential Part Of Market System - Forbes

Posted in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on RBI Gets More Power Over Indian Bank NPAs – Bankruptcy An Essential Part Of Market System – Forbes

Goodman Networks Bankruptcy Plan Confirmed – Bankrupt Company News (press release) (blog)

Posted: at 4:05 am

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving Goodman Networks Disclosure Statement and concurrently confirming the Amended Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization.

As previously reported, On the Effective Date, Secured Notes Claims shall be Allowed in the aggregate principal amount of $325,000,000, plus any accrued but unpaid interest, fees, and other expenses arising under or in connection with the Secured Notes Indentures.

In addition, On the Effective Date, Reorganized Goodman shall (i) issue New PIK Preferred Stock with an initial aggregate liquidation value of $80 million to the Holders of the Secured Notes Claims, (ii) issue the New PIK Preferred Stock with an initial liquidation value of $20 million to the Goodman MBE Group Entity, and (iii) reserve the New PIK Preferred Stock with an initial liquidation value of $5 million for the Management Incentive Plan. All of the New PIK Preferred Stock issued under the Plan shall be duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid, and non-assessable.

This telecommunications infrastructure provider filed for Chapter 11 protection on March 13, 2017, listing $254 million in pre-petition assets.

Read more bankruptcy news.

Read the original post:

Goodman Networks Bankruptcy Plan Confirmed - Bankrupt Company News (press release) (blog)

Posted in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on Goodman Networks Bankruptcy Plan Confirmed – Bankrupt Company News (press release) (blog)

A Non-Marxist’s Gratitude for Karl Marx – Kasmir Monitor

Posted: at 4:05 am

On Karl Marxs birth anniversary I hear a call from within; I feel like invoking him and paying homage to the prophet of modern times. Even though I am not a Marxist (if by being a Marxist one means following a set of strict guidelines unconditional acceptance of the postulates of historical materialism or the inexorable laws of history leading to the maturation of class conflict and resultant social transformation; or becoming an activist comrade in a leftist political group and negating all other visions of socialism as utopian), the oceanic currents in his thinking continue to fascinate students and wanderers like me. A political economist revealing the mysterious character that commodities acquire in the process of market-mediated exchange; a political theorist exploring the formation of classes, the social character of the state and the dynamics of power in a conflict-ridden society; and an existential philosopher negotiating with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach, and reflecting on the loss of mans species character in an alienated work sphere Marx seems to be all-pervading. And that is why I dare to recall him even in our times characterised by the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the assertion of neoliberal global capitalism. To begin with, I wish to refer to a set of four insights from Marxian thinking which, I believe, have altered our ways of seeing the world in a significant way even Marxs opponents cannot escape this influence. First, it is absolutely important to remember his profound moral/spiritual critique of capitalism. No, I do not wish to negate its importance by saying that it was merely the romanticism of young Marx. Instead, I see the limits to epistemological break and find an extraordinary affinity between Hegelian Marxs reflections on alienation, estranged labour, the ability of money to alter everything into its opposite and the death of all heavenly ecstasies in the icy water of egotistical calculation in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and Communist Manifesto, and what the mature Marx described in Capital as commodity fetishism the way human relations get transformed into relations between objects and commodities. What else do you see in the IPL a mix of global capitalism, corporate media and cricket spectacles? In fact, capitalism transforms us into commodities and destroys us our human potential, our creativity and relationships. And this led Marx to give us a noble (yet feasible) dream an aspiration for communism: the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, objectification and self-confirmation, freedom and necessity, love generating love, and a whole man cultivating all the faculties of being. We should not lose sight of this fact in the name of merely theorising labour time, surplus value and profit, even though, as a look at A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy would suggest, it has its importance. Second, he opened our eyes, equipped us with the spirit of critical consciousness the ability to see how our ideas are related to our social location, our engagement with the forces and relations of production and how the ideology of the ruling class (those who control the production relations) often projects itself as the dominant common sense, an indisputable truth. And we need to overcome the trap of this ideological illusion or false consciousness to see how society actually functions: say, the way the idea of fair competition conceals the reality that in a class divided society, because of the asymmetrical distribution of wealth and power, there is actually no equal race. This is like redefining the state. Beneath its apparent neutrality lies its essential interest to retain the status quo through its coercive as well as ideological apparatus. In a way, it was Marxs gift the ability to see beyond the doctrine of official truth. Third, Marx enabled us to see a new meaning in conflict. Conflict is not just an aberration, a law and order problem. Conflict is not necessarily negative. Instead, conflict is rooted in the process of social formation itself. The conflicting class interests, as his sharpened dialectical logic suggests, become the driving force in the progressive movement of history. In fact, it is through this methodology the continual dialectical interplay of thesis and anti-thesis that we see a pattern in history. We understand, say, how the new modes of production led to the rise of the aspiring industrial/ bourgeois class that eventually caused the demolition of feudalism, how the growth of the nationalist bourgeoisie in colonial India generated a pan-Indian freedom struggle, or how the vicious circle of Maoist upsurge and fake encounters is inseparable from an economic model that displaces, humiliates and marginalises the local inhabitants in the hinterland of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. And finally, Marx helped us to see the possibilities and boundaries of human agency. In the material world our freedom is not absolute because we are historically located actors governed by the constraints of socio-economic structure. Ideas, morality and religion, Marx said in The German Ideology, do not have the resemblance of autonomy because what individuals are coincides with their production, both with what they produce and how they produce. Yet, we should not forget that Marxs materialism was not like the mechanistic materialism of Feuerbach. Between consciousness and reality lies praxis, and it is through praxis that as collective subjects we regain our agency and, far from being passive spectators of history, take part in historic transformation. Marx was not a detached observer formulating the iron laws of history; instead, he was a passionate, reflexive thinker making us aware of our historic responsibility. The 11th thesis on Feuerbach makes this point abundantly clear: The philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways. The point, however, is to change it. No wonder that with such magical thinking Marx could inspire people from every walk of life artists, political activists, academics, philosophers. Even when differences prevail, it would be difficult to escape him. For instance, even though a sociologist like Max Weber came forward with a more nuanced reading of social stratification through the categories of class, status and power or pleaded for the role of ideas (or Calvinism) in the making of capitalism, the ghost of Marx would continue to haunt him. Likewise, while an Indian Marxist, because of the growing force of Ambedkarism, acknowledges the relative autonomy of caste, he does not forget to see its economic base in, say, landholding patterns in a semi-feudal economy. Or for that matter, Jean Paul Sartres existentialism was not altogether indifferent to the conscience of Marxism. In fact, Sartres anguish over bad faith was not fundamentally different from Marxs reflection on the agony of alienated man. And Michel Foucault, despite his critique of the Marxian grand theory of power, retained the same critical spirit in depicting the dynamics of micro physics of power through the technologies of surveillance and discipline. However, there are dangers economic determinism and the violence of authoritarianism that we cannot afford to forget. Luckily, creative, non-orthodox Marxists have come forward and regenerated its emancipatory spirit in the context of the changing times. Take, for instance, the possibility of Marxism being degenerated into a reductionist, deterministic, positivistic doctrine. Thank Antonio Gramsci; he evolved a powerful critique of this sort of vulgar evolutionism and positivism that he saw in Nikolai Bukharin and Georgi Plekhanov. The influence of the idealist philosopher Benedetto Croce and his immense sensitivity to the domain of culture and human possibilities led him to nurture a philosophy of praxis. There is no mechanistic or deterministic rule that makes history move. As politics is the realm of creative action, one can foresee, said Gramsci, to the extent one acts. With Gramsci we realised the need for reconciling the feeling of the popular element and the thinking of the intellectual element, the importance of a counter-hegemonic struggle in the domain of culture and the delicate balance of war of movement and war of position. With Gramsci, Marxism restored its essential humanism. Likewise, the burden of scientism (we should not forget that Marx too was a child of the European Enlightenment its rationale of scientific determinism, be it Newtonian theory or Darwinian evolution, proved to be an obstacle. The changing social reality in the 20th century the reduction of science into an ideology of domination leading to technological violence and instrumental rationality, the growth of non-reflexive culture industry and the mass psychology of fascism, the rise of authoritarian personalities like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin needed a new mode of thinking and analysis that classical Marxism could not provide. A great thing happened. The Frankfurt School emerged and we were meaningfully enlightened by Theodor Adornos path-breaking reading of culture industry, Marcuses analysis of new forms of social control promoting the practice of ceaseless consumption by one-dimensional man and Erich Fromms delicate engagement with Freud, Marx and deep religiosity leading to the celebration of being rather than having mode of existence. A culture-sensitive, dialogic and psychologically-enriched tradition within Marxism emerged. And why should we forget our own M.N. Roy his reminder of the seeds of authoritarianism in the notion of the vanguard or the dictatorship of the proletariat and his radical humanism and its celebration of some sort of party-less, decentralised democracy? All these experimentations, I believe, could retain the pluralistic tradition within Marxism and save it from the monopoly of its official practitioners. Marx was indeed a turning point possibly the founder of the most appealing secular religion in modern times. Yet, he missed something deep that the likes of Rabindranath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi realised. He missed what Tagore would have characterised as the poets religion an aesthetically enriched religiosity with a sense of gratitude and prayer, a religiosity that strives for our rhythmic connectedness with the universal: something beyond the parameters of class analysis. And he also missed what Gandhi would have regarded as a journey to the inner world: a constant work on the self for transforming politics into an act of love and sarvodaya. Marx missed this intuitive music of the soul because of his embeddedness in the Western discourse of reason. But then, this is what life is all about. We have to continuously learn, unlearn and expand our horizons. If we become sufficiently experimental and choose to walk with humanist Marx, poetic Tagore and visionary Gandhi, it is possible to find an exit route from what has been happening in the domain of Indian politics and culture militant nationalism as an ideology that conceals social contradictions, hyper-masculine aggression in the name of development, poverty amidst vulgar affluence and jobless growth, and a manipulated public sphere selling politics as a brand product.

Read this article:

A Non-Marxist's Gratitude for Karl Marx - Kasmir Monitor

Posted in Socio-economic Collapse | Comments Off on A Non-Marxist’s Gratitude for Karl Marx – Kasmir Monitor