ޡB|XC amA T_hJr3r`G];E|F`[ M'.\_"au^} Lofo=m+/GrlBٯx= ^eAfHJ,_q?!}h+ 5qa ]P !">
ޡB|XC amA T_hJr3r`G];E|F`[ M'.\_"au^} Lofo=m+/GrlBٯx= ^eAfHJ,_q?!}h+ 5qa ]P !">3+եe?bC}M>d,ټK4eeHa3M_hKNj#na0\HTmQYϏ\wXs CA^^ k
YMWI`L1[Iu +s ~}Ho/&;u#5 tK6ÀEW܁~~D5Bp&|G
g;s:*Q6천uǴ^\AB1zTp{ QcZJ.ڢϏcTisp+ޡB|XC amA T_hJr3r`G];E|F`[ M'.\
JonBenet Ramsey, who competed in beauty pageants, was found dead in the basement of her family's home in the college town of Boulder the day after Christmas in 1996. Her body was found several hours after her mother called 911 to say her daughter was missing and a ransom note was left behind. JonBenet was bludgeoned and strangled. Her death was ruled a homicide, but nobody was ever prosecuted. The details of the crime and video footage of JonBenet competing in pageants propelled the case into one of the highest-profile mysteries in the United States. The police comments came as part of their annual update on the investigation, a month before the 28th anniversary of JonBenet's killing. Police said they released it a little earlier due to the increased attention on the case, apparently referring to the three-part Netflix series "Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey." In a video statement, Boulder Police Chief Steve Redfearn said the department welcomes news coverage and documentaries about the killing of JonBenet, who would have been 34 this year, as a way to generate possible new leads. He said the department is committed to solving the case but needs to be careful about what it shares about the investigation to protect a possible future prosecution. "What I can tell you though, is we have thoroughly investigated multiple people as suspects throughout the years and we continue to be open-minded about what occurred as we investigate the tips that come in to detectives," he said. The Netflix documentary focuses on the mistakes made by police and the "media circus" surrounding the case. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack Police were widely criticized for mishandling the early investigation into her death amid speculation that her family was responsible. However, a prosecutor cleared her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, and brother Burke in 2008 based on new DNA evidence from JonBenet's clothing that pointed to the involvement of an "unexplained third party" in her slaying. The announcement by former district attorney Mary Lacy came two years after Patsy Ramsey died of cancer. Lacy called the Ramseys "victims of this crime." John Ramsey continued to speak out for the case to be solved. In 2022, he supported an online petition asking Colorado's governor to intervene in the investigation by putting an outside agency in charge of DNA testing in the case. In the Netflix documentary, he said he advocated for several items that were not prepared for DNA testing to be tested and for other items to be retested. He said the results should be put through a genealogy database. In recent years, investigators identified suspects in unsolved cases by comparing DNA profiles from crime scenes and to DNA testing results shared online by people researching their family trees. In 2021, police said in their annual update that DNA hadn't been ruled out to help solve the case, and in 2022 noted that some evidence could be "consumed" if DNA testing is done on it. Last year, police said they convened a panel of outside experts to review the investigation to give recommendations and determine if updated technologies or forensic testing might produce new leads. In the latest update, Redfearn said that review ended but police continue to work through and evaluate a "lengthy list of recommendations" from the panel.Who is the last Democrat presidential candidate to win Texas? The answer: Jimmy Carter. His 1976 victory over Gerald Ford in Texas signaled the last gasp for a Lone Star Democratic Party already on the ropes. In 1968, Richard Nixon’s southern strategy had already jump-started the movement of conservative Democrats to the Republican Party. And Lyndon B. Johnson’s push for civil rights legislation years earlier started the migration of white southerners from the Democratic Party. After the Watergate scandal led to Nixon’s resignation, Carter won big for Democrats in 1976. It was hoped that he would usher in a new era of Democratic Party stars, particularly because he was largely unknown to most Americans — and Texans — when he defeated Ford. Carter’s rise in Texas was remarkable. He ran in a Democratic primary that included U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, the state’s favorite son candidate. While most Texans supported Bentsen, a young Democrat and Dallas lawyer named Martin Frost backed Carter, becoming his North Texas campaign coordinator. “The Carter campaign was willing to listen to local people,” Frost said. “The campaign also involved some younger people and their new ideas, instead of just using the same old folks. ... We knew it was going to be close. And it was very close, and of course, Carter was the last Democrat to carry the state of Texas for president.” Once Carter became the Democratic Party nominee, Frost said his Texas aides took an out-of-the box approach to challenging Ford in Texas. In one instance, Frost directed Carter to speak to a group of Dallas-area businessmen instead of a group of ministers. That turned out to be a fortunate decision, because before the meeting the infamous "Playboy" article was published in which Carter said, “I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” “That’s the only thing that would have been in the story,” Frost said. “It turned out to be the right decision.” On the Sunday before the 1976 general election, Carter went to Fort Worth, then a Democratic Party stronghold, rather than the GOP environs of Dallas. The large rally attracted 10,000 people at the Fort Worth Convention Center. Carter was also popular with many Black voters because of his association with the family of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. “Carter was a southerner, but he had strong support in the Black community in addition to being a fairly moderate Democrat,” Frost said. “That made it possible for him to win.” Just as quickly as Carter rose as a Democratic Party champion, his 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan changed the course of politics, especially in southern states like Texas. “The biggest turn came with Ronald Reagan,” said 5th Court of Appeals Justice Ken Molberg, who helped Carter win Texas against Ford. “Once Carter lost in such dramatic fashion, things really started to change.” The Reagan revolution and Carter’s collapse accelerated the exodus of conservatives from the Democratic Party. In time, folks like Rick Perry, a former Democrat, switched to the GOP and thrived. Perry would go on to be Texas governor. Democrats hung in there for a while. As late as 1990 Ann Richards had a high-profile win for Texas governor. But that was essentially the end of the line for a party that had dominated Texas politics since it became a state. George W. Bush upended Richards in 1994. And that year marked the last time a Democrat won a statewide office. The gut-punch for Democrats came in 2003, when Republicans took control of the Texas House for the first time since Reconstruction. Just as Reagan became a hero for the conservative movement, Carter was a symbol of the Democratic Party’s decline. The Texas Democratic Party is now dominated by Black and Hispanic leaders. Once plentiful in the Texas Legislature, there are only a few white male Democrats left. Small town Texas was once heavily controlled by Democrats. Not any more. Despite the 1980 loss, many Texas Democrats have fond memories of Carter. Frost said Carter took advantage of what was needed at the time of his rise. “He was the right guy in the right place at the right time,” he said. “The country wanted somebody after Watergate. They wanted somebody fresh. They wanted an honest guy, and Carter happened to fit that description.” Carter, Frost added, had success as a president. “He played a tremendously instrumental role in bringing up peace between Israel and Egypt. And he did the right thing in terms of our relations with Latin America,” Frost said. “Not only was he pro-civil rights, but he was also pro-democracy. He had a lot of appeal.” After a failed 1974 congressional race, Frost used his experience with the 1976 Carter campaign to try another run for public office. “Based on my experience in ‘76, and the fact that I made some correct judgments in terms of what we should do this campaign. I decided I’d give this another shot,” he said. “So I ran again in ‘78, and I won.” Frost represented the Dallas area in the U.S. House from 1979 to 2005. When asked whether Carter endorsed his former North Texas campaign director for Congress, Frost replied: “Let’s just say that his name was invoked.” Molberg remembers Carter as a “genuinely nice man” and an underrated president. A former chairman of the Dallas County Democratic Party and veteran of many political campaigns, Molberg wasn’t always a Carter supporter. “In 1980, I was part of Ted Kennedy’s insurgency,” he said. “I was fighting against Jimmy Carter, but then I fought to help him win Texas against Ford.” Molberg says the culture wars of the last two decades have helped Republicans hold their power. But he adds demographic shifts and progressive issues, like the need for affordable health care and an economy that works for all Americans, could help to turn Texas blue. Democrats have already rebounded in Dallas and Harris counties and are making inroads in other parts of North Texas. Molberg’s 2018 election to the Dallas-based 5th Court of Appeals was something a Democrat couldn’t achieve early in the decade. That’s something Carter would appreciate. ©2024 The Dallas Morning News. Visit dallasnews.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Europe’s tallest building, the Lakhta Center, is a stunning architectural marvel standing at an astonishing 1,515 feet tall. Located in Saint Petersburg , Russia , this sleek, spiralling tower is a landmark that redefines the city’s skyline and serves as a testament to modern engineering. Completed in 2018, the Lakhta Center was commissioned by Gazprom, one of the world’s largest energy companies, and it currently serves as its headquarters. Designed by architectural firm RMJM, the tower’s twisting form minimises wind resistance, making it both practical and aesthetically striking. The Lakhta Center overtook Moscow’s Federation Tower to claim the title of Europe’s tallest building, and it’s 500ft taller than The Shard in London, which measures 1,016 feet. With its record-breaking height, the Lakhta Center ranks among the 20 tallest buildings in the world. The Lakhta Center isn’t just tall, it’s green, too. The building incorporates advanced energy-saving technologies, including a double-skin facade that improves thermal insulation and a sophisticated heating and cooling system that minimises its environmental impact. Its construction adhered to international environmental standards, earning it a LEED Gold certification. The tower features 87 floors, housing a mix of offices, observation decks, and public spaces. Its observation deck, perched near the top of the structure, offers panoramic views of the Gulf of Finland and the historic city of Saint Petersburg. Standing far taller than the city’s traditional low-rise architecture, the Lakhta Center is not without controversy. Some critics argue that its immense height disrupts the aesthetic balance of the UNESCO World Heritage site. However, supporters claim that the building is a symbol of progress and modernity, reflecting Russia ’s ambition to blend heritage with innovation. The Lakhta Center has inspired a wave of urban development in Saint Petersburg, including new residential and commercial projects in its surrounding district. The skyscraper also serves as a cultural hub, with an amphitheater, planetarium, and exhibition spaces open to the public.
President Joe Biden mourns Jimmy Carters death, orders official state funeral to honor him
NoneDENVER — Amid renewed interest in the killing of JonBenet Ramsey triggered in part by a new Netflix documentary, police in Boulder, Colorado, refuted assertions this week that there is viable evidence and leads about the 1996 killing of the 6-year-old girl that they are not pursuing. JonBenet Ramsey, who competed in beauty pageants, was found dead in the basement of her family's home in the college town of Boulder the day after Christmas in 1996. Her body was found several hours after her mother called 911 to say her daughter was missing and a ransom note was left behind. The gravesite of JonBenet Ramsey is covered with flowers Jan. 8, 1997, at St. James Episcopal Cemetery in Marietta, Ga. Andy Sharp, Atlanta Journal-Constitution JonBenet was bludgeoned and strangled. Her death was ruled a homicide, but nobody was ever prosecuted. The details of the crime and video footage of JonBenet competing in pageants propelled the case into one of the highest-profile mysteries in the United States. The police comments came as part of their annual update on the investigation, a month before the 28th anniversary of JonBenet's killing. Police said they released it a little earlier due to the increased attention on the case, apparently referring to the three-part Netflix series "Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey." People are also reading... In a video statement, Boulder Police Chief Steve Redfearn said the department welcomes news coverage and documentaries about the killing of JonBenet, who would have been 34 this year, as a way to generate possible new leads. He said the department is committed to solving the case but needs to be careful about what it shares about the investigation to protect a possible future prosecution. "What I can tell you though, is we have thoroughly investigated multiple people as suspects throughout the years and we continue to be open-minded about what occurred as we investigate the tips that come in to detectives," he said. The Netflix documentary focuses on the mistakes made by police and the "media circus" surrounding the case. Listen now and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS Feed | SoundStack A police officer sits in her cruiser Jan. 3, 1997, outside the home in which 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered Dec. 26, 1996, in Boulder, Colo. David Zalubowski, Associated Press Police were widely criticized for mishandling the early investigation into her death amid speculation that her family was responsible. However, a prosecutor cleared her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, and brother Burke in 2008 based on new DNA evidence from JonBenet's clothing that pointed to the involvement of an "unexplained third party" in her slaying. The announcement by former district attorney Mary Lacy came two years after Patsy Ramsey died of cancer. Lacy called the Ramseys "victims of this crime." John Ramsey continued to speak out for the case to be solved. In 2022, he supported an online petition asking Colorado's governor to intervene in the investigation by putting an outside agency in charge of DNA testing in the case. In the Netflix documentary, he said he advocated for several items that were not prepared for DNA testing to be tested and for other items to be retested. He said the results should be put through a genealogy database. In recent years, investigators identified suspects in unsolved cases by comparing DNA profiles from crime scenes and to DNA testing results shared online by people researching their family trees. In 2021, police said in their annual update that DNA hadn't been ruled out to help solve the case, and in 2022 noted that some evidence could be "consumed" if DNA testing is done on it. Last year, police said they convened a panel of outside experts to review the investigation to give recommendations and determine if updated technologies or forensic testing might produce new leads. In the latest update, Redfearn said that review ended but police continue to work through and evaluate a "lengthy list of recommendations" from the panel. True crime's popularity brings real change for defendants and society. It's not all good How The Monkees ended up with an FBI File | Late Edition: Crime Beat Chronicles podcast Stay up-to-date on what's happening
In the ever-evolving world of artificial intelligence, accuracy and reliability are paramount. Recently, Google has found itself at the center of controversy regarding the methods it employs to fact-check the responses generated by its latest AI model, Gemini. Reports have emerged alleging that the tech giant is utilizing contract workers without specific domain expertise to evaluate the veracity of Gemini’s answers, raising concerns about the potential for misinformation and compromised quality control. This issue came to light last week when internal guidance documents, reviewed by TechCrunch, revealed that Google instructed GlobalLogic, an outsourcing firm responsible for evaluating AI-generated output, to have their contractors assess all prompts, regardless of their knowledge in the relevant field. Previously, contractors had the option to skip prompts that fell outside their area of expertise, such as a doctor being asked to evaluate legal advice. This change in policy has sparked debate and apprehension among industry experts and the public alike. The Implications of Using Non-Experts for Fact-Checking The implications of using novices to fact-check complex AI-generated responses are significant and far-reaching. Firstly, it raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information being produced by Gemini. Without subject matter experts evaluating the responses, there is a heightened risk of errors, biases, and misleading information going undetected. This could have serious consequences, especially in fields where accuracy is crucial, such as healthcare, finance, and law. Secondly, this practice undermines the public’s trust in AI technology. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into various aspects of our lives, it is essential that the information it provides is trustworthy and accurate. If users cannot rely on the veracity of AI-generated content, it could lead to skepticism and reluctance to embrace this transformative technology. Furthermore, this situation raises ethical concerns about the exploitation of contract workers. By requiring them to evaluate information outside their expertise, Google may be placing undue pressure on these individuals and potentially jeopardizing the quality of their work. This practice could also be seen as undervaluing the importance of specialized knowledge and expertise in ensuring the accuracy of AI systems. Google’s Response and the Path Forward In response to these allegations, Google has defended its practices, stating that the evaluation process is multifaceted and involves multiple layers of review. They emphasize that the feedback from contractors is just one component of a broader system that includes automated checks and expert evaluation. However, critics argue that relying on non-experts for initial fact-checking could still allow inaccuracies to slip through the cracks, potentially compromising the integrity of the entire system . To address these concerns and ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of Gemini’s responses, Google should prioritize the following steps: My Personal Experience with AI and the Importance of Expert Knowledge As someone who has been closely following the development of AI for many years, I have witnessed both its incredible potential and its limitations. In my own work, I have used AI tools for various tasks, such as generating content and analyzing data. However, I have always emphasized the importance of human oversight and expert knowledge to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results. I believe that AI can be a powerful tool for augmenting human capabilities and solving complex problems. However, it is crucial to recognize that AI systems are not infallible and require careful monitoring and evaluation. By prioritizing expert knowledge and investing in robust quality control processes, we can harness the full potential of AI while mitigating the risks associated with misinformation and bias. The Future of AI and the Need for Responsible Development The controversy surrounding Google’s fact-checking practices serves as a reminder of the importance of responsible AI development. As AI continues to evolve and become more sophisticated, it is crucial that we prioritize ethical considerations and ensure that these technologies are used for the benefit of humanity. This includes ensuring that AI systems are accurate, reliable, and free from bias. It also means being transparent about the limitations of AI and providing users with the information they need to make informed decisions. By working together and adhering to ethical principles, we can create a future where AI is a force for good, empowering us to solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges. The allegations against Google highlight the critical need for rigorous fact-checking processes in the development and deployment of AI systems. By relying on non-experts to evaluate the accuracy of Gemini’s responses , Google risks compromising the integrity of its AI model and eroding public trust in this transformative technology. Moving forward, it is essential that Google prioritizes the engagement of subject matter experts, refines its evaluation guidelines, and maintains transparency and accountability in its AI development practices. By doing so, Google can help to ensure that AI is used responsibly and ethically, paving the way for a future where this technology benefits all of humanity.
Knight stops 20 shots, Florida rolls past Carolina 6-0 for 2nd win over 'Canes in as many days
Claim of Pam Bondi pledging Nancy Pelosi probe is stolen satire | Fact check
By Hannah Fry, Los Angeles Times (TNS) Every day millions of people share more intimate information with their accessories than they do with their spouse. Wearable technology — smartwatches, smart rings, fitness trackers and the like — monitors body-centric data such as your heart rate, steps taken and calories burned, and may record where you go along the way. Like Santa Claus, it knows when you are sleeping (and how well), it knows when you’re awake, it knows when you’ve been idle or exercising, and it keeps track of all of it. People are also sharing sensitive health information on health and wellness apps , including online mental health and counseling programs. Some women use period tracker apps to map out their monthly cycle. These devices and services have excited consumers hoping for better insight into their health and lifestyle choices. But the lack of oversight into how body-centric data are used and shared with third parties has prompted concerns from privacy experts, who warn that the data could be sold or lost through data breaches, then used to raise insurance premiums, discriminate surreptitiously against applicants for jobs or housing, and even perform surveillance. The use of wearable technology and medical apps surged in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, but research released by Mozilla on Wednesday indicates that current laws offer little protection for consumers who are often unaware just how much of their health data are being collected and shared by companies. “I’ve been studying the intersections of emerging technologies, data-driven technologies, AI and human rights and social justice for the past 15 years, and since the pandemic I’ve noticed the industry has become hyper-focused on our bodies,” said Mozilla Foundation technology fellow Júlia Keserű, who conducted the research. “That permeates into all kinds of areas of our lives and all kinds of domains within the tech industry.” The report “From Skin to Screen: Bodily Integrity in the Digital Age” recommends that existing data protection laws be clarified to encompass all forms of bodily data. It also calls for expanding national health privacy laws to cover health-related information collected from health apps and fitness trackers and making it easier for users to opt out of body-centric data collections. Researchers have been raising alarms about health data privacy for years. Data collected by companies are often sold to data brokers or groups that buy, sell and trade data from the internet to create detailed consumer profiles. Body-centric data can include information such as the fingerprints used to unlock phones, face scans from facial recognition technology, and data from fitness and fertility trackers, mental health apps and digital medical records. One of the key reasons health information has value to companies — even when the person’s name is not associated with it — is that advertisers can use the data to send targeted ads to groups of people based on certain details they share. The information contained in these consumer profiles is becoming so detailed, however, that when paired with other data sets that include location information, it could be possible to target specific individuals, Keserű said. Location data can “expose sophisticated insights about people’s health status, through their visits to places like hospitals or abortions clinics,” Mozilla’s report said, adding that “companies like Google have been reported to keep such data even after promising to delete it.” A 2023 report by Duke University revealed that data brokers were selling sensitive data on individuals’ mental health conditions on the open market. While many brokers deleted personal identifiers, some provided names and addresses of individuals seeking mental health assistance, according to the report. In two public surveys conducted as part of the research, Keserű said, participants were outraged and felt exploited in scenarios where their health data were sold for a profit without their knowledge. “We need a new approach to our digital interactions that recognizes the fundamental rights of individuals to safeguard their bodily data, an issue that speaks directly to human autonomy and dignity,” Keserű said. “As technology continues to advance, it is critical that our laws and practices evolve to meet the unique challenges of this era.” Consumers often take part in these technologies without fully understanding the implications. Last month, Elon Musk suggested on X that users submit X-rays, PET scans, MRIs and other medical images to Grok, the platform’s artificial intelligence chatbot, to seek diagnoses. The issue alarmed privacy experts, but many X users heeded Musk’s call and submitted health information to the chatbot. While X’s privacy policy says that the company will not sell user data to third parties, it does share some information with certain business partners. Gaps in existing laws have allowed the widespread sharing of biometric and other body-related data. Health information provided to hospitals, doctor’s offices and medical insurance companies is protected from disclosure under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , known as HIPAA, which established federal standards protecting such information from release without the patient’s consent. But health data collected by many wearable devices and health and wellness apps don’t fall under HIPAA’s umbrella, said Suzanne Bernstein, counsel at Electronic Privacy Information Center. “In the U.S. because we don’t have a comprehensive federal privacy law ... it falls to the state level,” she said. But not every state has weighed in on the issue. Washington, Nevada and Connecticut all recently passed laws to provide safeguards for consumer health data. Washington, D.C., in July introduced legislation that aimed to require tech companies to adhere to strengthened privacy provisions regarding the collection, sharing, use or sale of consumer health data. In California, the California Privacy Rights Act regulates how businesses can use certain types of sensitive information, including biometric information, and requires them to offer consumers the ability to opt out of disclosure of sensitive personal information. “This information being sold or shared with data brokers and other entities hypercharge the online profiling that we’re so used to at this point, and the more sensitive the data, the more sophisticated the profiling can be,” Bernstein said. “A lot of the sharing or selling with third parties is outside the scope of what a consumer would reasonably expect.” Health information has become a prime target for hackers seeking to extort healthcare agencies and individuals after accessing sensitive patient data. Health-related cybersecurity breaches and ransom attacks increased more than 4,000% between 2009 and 2023, targeting the booming market of body-centric data, which is expected to exceed $500 billion by 2030, according to the report. “Nonconsensual data sharing is a big issue,” Keserű said. “Even if it’s biometric data or health data, a lot of the companies are just sharing that data without you knowing, and that is causing a lot of anxiety and questions.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
- Previous: ipL rF
q`Y2S+Ɉ"Es%9Rh.f2/Y.t酋"9&Zn ˛yܻ?@}1rh-;Ez!2gW(ʰ }nCcv,&O×w i"7$E{i{3Jӓs9gu^R4˻:PZz}G(,G62A-kâoJ*v `WKf&E`{ZڄwYvls@i /
- Next: )zrb| R [8yp9 luJlPY%$ab&WB^ثJ/cWaAY&';g__yR/U}}iЛV-6=7Qsje-VW&_V`+hVE@?TGtˢ-#6rYs8%OcJ-! w¡ 14ZJn ^ Ր҃!gdu9hL͛̒vZIY g3Nc)4 [ h~OpҥQE;iVĎS+Tf0#"NG