35 Burst results for "darpa"
Biden's DARPA Will Accomplish Nothing With Red Tape Everywhere
"To this from Biden. Now cut one go. Something called DARPA, The Defense Advanced Research Project agency. Set up exclusively in the Defense Department. Good Lord to seek out the cutting edge research projects. That enhance our national security. An outfit that came up With the Internet GPS And a lot of still think a lot of things. My proposal. We do a similar thing. Now let's slow down. We needed DARPA, Ladies and gentlemen, because the private sector is not in charge of national security. The private sector is not in charge of national security. That is a Responsibility. One of the specific responsibilities of the federal government. Go ahead. I propose we spent $6.5 million now, where's that figure come from nowhere. Billions and billions and hundreds of billions and trillions and This is this is Like like a nightmare. What's going on here? Go ahead. Similar agency within the national shoot of health. The NIH called Advanced Research Project Agency are put H. Dark. They come up with these names. Arpaio age Sounds cool. Go ahead. Help speed Cutting edge research. How to detect Treat and cure diseases like Alzheimer's diabetes and cancer. Let let Let's stop here a second. The government has spent trillions of dollars. Addressing all these issues and their horrific issues, they really are. And if they want to partner with the private sector the way Operation Warp speed did and so forth and fine, but you're now going to nationalize.
Facebook, Twitter, Google CEOs Testify Before Congress
"Big Tech testifies before Congress Today, CBS is Stacey Lynn. With more you'll get grilled by lawmakers about their role in promoting extremism and misinformation. They're expected to defend the accusations that they failed to do their part. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg is expected to voice Support for updates to a law that protects them from being held liable for what users post soon. DARPA China from Google intends to talk about harming free expression and Twitter's Jack Dorsey will acknowledge they need to do something about the public's mistrust in social media
Gene Editing and Recovery from Radiation
"Welcome to the talking biotech podcast. Weekly podcast about agriculture medicine with an emphasis on biotechnology and the good things we can do for people and the planet names kevin volta. I'm a professor and a podcast host. Who cares about science communication mostly around the area of biotechnology. So today we wanted to talk about something interesting. Radiation and radiation has many places in biology. Of course our resistance to it. The problems that can be caused from it as well as its use as a therapeutic agent used to induce genetic variability when we do plant breeding but has some deleterious downsides and they've represented barriers both for remediation of radioactive. Waste as well as if there's issues with the side effects of radiation therapies for cancer. So i was excited to learn about some work. That's happening. The innovative genomics institute out at the university of california berkeley. There's work that's gone. Underway under darpa funding to attempt to use gene editing to solve some of the problems associated with radiation exposure. Mostly in acute radiation sickness. and so. today we're going to talk to dr feodor urnov. He's a professor in molecular and cell biology department at the university of california berkeley as well as the director for translation technology at the innovative genomics institute associated with berkeley. So welcome to the podcast. Dr urnov thank you for having. This is really a pleasure. I was really excited to read about this. Because it seems like such a cool project that's long overdue and i can certainly understand arpaio's interest in this. I tried to frame a little bit of the problem ahead of time. But could you give me a better explanation of. What is the problem with acute radiation sickness. And where do we see it across. The bay from the berkeley campus is one of the best if not the best teaching hospital in america. Ucsf in the chair of radiation oncology. Dr mary fung has told me how frustrating it is to have. Her patients succumb to cancer of the abdomen and of the pelvis. Oh things like pancreatic liver you. Try a variant. Despite the fact that she has a powerful weapon to pure those cure is a big word and the weapon is radiation as you pointed out as all technologies radiation has had a positive side in the negative side the negative side. Of course we think about weapons. We think about radiation disasters such as mobile in in the ussr. Where i went grow was born and raised three mile island Shema but then on the positive side radiation is used to determine how our teeth are doing or our lungs are doing which is particularly timely given. What's happening right now. In our nation and has also a really really powerful medicine to cure cancer. The reason it's not more widely available is what's technically known as dose limiting city and in english. That means you cannot give enough of the cure before it side effects overpower its benefits. So in dr funk's practice the physician. So i'm regurgitating. What i learned from her and other had the honor to collaborate with. She has a patient with a with a major cancer of the abdomen. Or or the pelvic area she can irradiate the tumor and eradicated. The patients do not recover because tissues that are inevitably also effective so the gut and the bone. Marrow where are aquatic stem cells live are irreversibly damaged by the radiation itself. So the patients Die off either lethal diarrhea which cannot be stopped using anything
The History of the Internet
"To begin with we as a species. We've been trying to categorize an attain all the knowledge. We haven't to a database of sorts for a very long time right so for example in seventeen twenty. Eight ephraim champions globe maker publishes the cyclopes or a universal dictionary of arts and sciences. It is the earliest attempt to link by association all the articles in an encyclopedia or more generally all the components of human knowledge. He wrote in his preface quote this. We endeavored to attain by considering the several matters. E topics not only absolutely and independently as to what they are in themselves but also relatively or as they respect each other. So we've been thinking about like how to how to access knowledge how to obtain information and organize it in in a in a way so that more people can access it quicker classic enlightenment. Classic enlightenment am my right So in one thousand. Nine hundred belgian lawyers and bibliographer paul outlet and on revilla contain proposed a central repository for the world's knowledge organized by the universal decimal classification. It was called the mondays And it would eventually house. More than fifteen million index cards one hundred thousand files and millions of images and in nineteen thirty four outlet further advanced his vision for the radiated library in which people worldwide will place telephone calls to his quote mechanical collective brain. And we'll get back information as tv signals. So this was a theory. This is something that they thought could get off the ground then in nineteen thirty six h. g. wells first predicts what's called the world brain He wrote the whole human memory can be and probably short time. We'll be made accessible to every individual time is close at hand when any student in any part of the world will be able to sit with his projector in his own study at his or her convenience to examine any book. any document in an exact replica. Study accurate it's pretty accurate so the world brain was to be a central repository of the world's knowledge organized by complex taxonomy invented by wells. So clearly there has been a precedent for desiring this kind of thing. So the concept of data communication or transmitting data between two different places through an electromagnetic medium such as radio or an electric wire predates the introduction of the first computers right. Such communication systems were typically limited to point to point communication between two end devices. Like semaphore lines are telegraph systems and telex machines so these can be considered early precursors to this kind of communication and the telegraph in the late. Nineteenth century was the first fully digital communication system. So that's just cool trivia fact it been a deeply so up until about nineteen sixty computers were huge unwieldy and self contained. You could use them as a tool. But you couldn't necessarily make them talk to each other or transmit information across any distances using them but there were a bunch of people working towards making that happen so a man named christopher stray cheesy who became the oxford university is first professor of computation filed a patent application for time sharing in february of nineteen fifty nine in june that year. He gave a paper called time sharing enlarge fast computers at the unesco information processing conference in paris where he passed the concept onto to lick lighter of mit like lighter vice president at both derek and newman inc and they discuss a computer network in his january. Nineteen sixty paper called man computer symbiosis so a quote from that is a network of computers connected to one another by wideband communication lines which provide the functions of present day libraries together with anticipated advances in information storage. And retrieval and other symbiotic functions. So super like great reading. You know just like pull it up right. Now read it. Yeah take it to the beach. You know something really exciting. So paul baran then publishes reliable digital communications systems using unreliable network repeater nodes the first of a series of papers that proposed the designed for distributed networks using packet switching. And we'll talk about that for a second. Method used to this day to transmit information over the internet and then a little later. Donald davies the. Uk's national physical laboratory or n. P. l. independently developed the same idea. So there's a little bit of like linear here So while baron used the term message blocks for his units of communication davies. Use the term packets so i was like what the hell is packet. Switching so packet switching is essentially and i. I used the the metaphor of of charlie and the chocolate factory. Ok you know mike. Tv how said the tv you're broken up into little pieces gets reassembled on the other side. That's basically what packet switching is with. Data the pieces get sent over in smaller pieces because they can travel over greater distances being smaller and then they get reassembled on the other side so that's packet switching s perfect. I'm gonna get a lot of emails. Okay so. Jc are lick lighter so jc are lick lighter. He was known as either. Jc are like friends. Call them lick several shame. I guess it's shorter than say j. C. r. guess so or just like yourself jim anyway He became the director of the newly-established information processing techniques office. Or the ipo within the us. Defense department's advanced research projects agency or darpa. So then robert. Taylor becomes the director of the information processing techniques office. Pto in nineteen sixty six and he intended to realize lighters idea of an interconnected networking system so he proposes to his boss the arpanet so the advanced research projects agency net which is a network that would connect the different projects that arpaio was sponsoring so a way to like keep everything together and at the time each project has its own specialized terminal and unique set of user commands so in order to talk to each terminal you had to physically go to the computer terminal that only spoke to that individual one so he was like what if we just had one computer that connected to everything and that was arpanet basically bam bam so there were like great. I love this. So they awarded. Arba awarded the contract to build this network to bolt beranek and newman or bbn technologies. And they're involved in the early stages of the internet in a major way and so all mentioned them like a bunch of times so the first arpanet link was established between the university of california los angeles and the stanford research institute at twenty to thirty hours on october. Twenty ninth nineteen. Sixty-nine the first message was the word log in that's boring. I know it's super boring computer guys. I was necessary to jump. It wasn't the first text message. Merry christmas oh. I don't know maybe it was being at least that s something. Yeah or what. Does it come here. I need you. That's the one for the telephone log in. Yeah right fine. at least it's easy to remember. Yeah i message sent over. The internet is the message lock-in so sent over arpanet between the network node at ucla and a second one at sri. So leonard kline rock of ucla said at the ucla and they typed in the l. and asked sri by phone if they received it got the l. Came the voice reply. Ucla typed in the. Oh asked if they got it and received got the oh. ucla then typed in the g. And the darn system crashed boy the beginning on the second attempt. It worked fine so by the end of that year. Four host computers connected together in the initial arpanet so this was like the beginning of of the end. Basically
Social media CEOs to face grilling from Republican senators
"The top executives from Facebook Twitter and Google have been summoned to testify before a congressional committee today about alleged political bias some lawmakers on the Senate commerce committee think the big social media giants are suppressing conservative religious and anti abortion views on their platforms the allegations increase this month after the New York Post published an unverified story about Joe Biden and his son's business activities which most other media outlets did not so after being threatened with subpoenas mark Zuckerberg Jack Dorsey and Google soon DARPA chai will be grilled about what they post and what they suppress senators will also explore proposals to revise legal protections for online speech which critics say allows social media platforms to avoid having to filter out questionable content Jackie Quinn Washington
Whats Next for the U.S. Air Forces Next Generation Air Dominance Program
"I'm wondering if you can kind of go back and tell us what is next generation air dominance, and where did that program emerged from? How did we get from nowhere to a demonstrator because didn't just happen like that. Well, it it. It seemed to I. Mean You know when? Roper is Dr over the essence secretary of the Air Force Brat Position Technology Logistics. Announced very abruptly yesterday during his speech that this flight demonstrator had flown I. think that everybody by surprise I wasn't expecting that kind of announcement during his speech today and It's exciting I mean I. I can't be as as an aviation aerospace journalist with an interest in military aviation I mean this that's the that's as good as it gets a secret of flight demonstrator for new fighter that you. You hear about the first time it's confirmed that there's nothing more exciting except for actually seeing it, which I hope we see when they but it turns out. I. Mean there there is a paper trail there's a, there's a little breadcrumbs that have been sprinkled. Along the path of public comments, I air force leaders over the past couple years leading to this, and some of them have only become sensible in retrospect now that we know that this thing really does exist. But in some ways are actually quite explicit and I think I'd point initially to an exchange ahead with journal Goldfine who just retired a month ago but a year ago at the same event even though it wasn't virtual at the time, it was in Bersin. Gerald goldfine chief of staff had a press conference I was asking about next generation air dominance in my big question was about the propulsion side of it congress at the time was was expressing quite a bit of frustration with the air force because it's been billions of dollars on adapted cycle propulsion, and there was no publicly available roadmap to use it, and so they're saying. Why are you still asking for this money? We have no place to put it. You know. So tell us where you're going to put A. I, put that question to many explain what you know. It's it's bit difficult because there's a live classification while tennis and so there's only so much. We can say they said L. L. Region his exact quote he said he's here's our. Strategy. We have five key technologies that were investing in that we don't intend to have all come together on a single. To be able to do the mission. In the future, we expect these technologies to be adaptable to existing platforms, and we expect these technologies to come forward into a family. I, know use family assistance a lot but really, and truly that's the next generation dominance. So as a so our intent is to keep these joint technologies moving aggressively and have them come together. They will all mature in accelerate at different paces as they become ready. You'll see US adapting them on existing platforms, sensors, and weapons, and also looking at new platforms sensors. So that was what he said and then I I didn't understand what really what he was getting out. I just didn't he didn't answer my question. So I repeated my question. What is the you know? When are we going to see a roadmap for adaptive cycle propulsion? And he his answer was there has to be a test article to be able to take some of those technologies to mature. That's probably about as far as I can go in quote right so what he was saying they're in retrospect is we have five technologies. We're GONNA put on in Gad. He didn't say but sounds like adaptive cycle propulsion is one of them and You know they need a test article, a flight test demonstrator in other words. To validate the majority of the technologies in-flight. So. That was almost as explicit as the air force has been about that. But really there was a time when. The Department of Defense was even more explicit about the the plans to actually use flight demonstrators for next generation are dominant and it goes back Congressional testimony in twenty sixteen at the time Frank Kendall who was the Under Secretary of defense for Acquisition and technology a acquisition technology in the justice. It has written testimony. included this written test, the House of Representatives. twenty. This was actually in calendar year twenty fourteen and it was going to launch a program in. Fiscal year. Twenty fifty. and. It was the aerospace innovation initiative that would be managed by the defensive ends. agency Darpa. Anna says the A I- Aerospace Innovation Initiative includes a new program to demonstrate advanced aircraft technologies in explains. As, well, as the ongoing previously mentioned advanced engine technology, which is adapted cycle. A. I is goals include strengthening. The critically important design teams in the defense industrial base reducing lead. Time. For Feature Systems the explains will not be engineering. Development Prototypes for have residual operational capabilities. The results successful the development and demonstration explain program will inform future aircraft acquisitions. So that gives you a sort of the background on how these. flight demonstrators came into existence and what their purpose walls. We know from Rocha's comments that the flight demonstrator that he's referring to be called a full-scale flight demonstrator so as a subscale or Even, a large aircraft that is meant to extrapolate the flying qualities of even of an even larger aircraft. So You know but there's still a lot we we don't know about it but that's generally the gist of how we got
A Look at Bird Strike Countermeasures
"Obviously, bird strikes against you feel like this is an issue but it is right and these things especially. If. It's like a goose I mean, that's a I don't know what twelve pound object getting hit by something going for and miles per hour. Well, what what is, what is the damage like here and how do they? What is the technology keeping US safe from safe from these bird menaces it really is testing. That's what it is and designing for the regulatory requirements. So the regulatory criminal for aircraft for twenty five aircraft which are trying to transport category or. Larger business jets is a four pound bird I think is going at VC So that's a pretty fast speed. I'm electrical guy not a structural person but. Those tests are super destructive, and if you ever, you can go online and go on Youtube and see bird strike tests I've seen the other crazy it as look like they become liquid hitting these. Oh Yeah. Everything becomes at that speed is so much energy. Being dispersed in such a short span of time that biscuit the turn Jello. And it Kinda. It kinda it absorbs into the structure in which is running into, and then there's really no way. Today we actually have some competition ways to predict the amount of damage that recur, but we still do testing. So it's sort of a computational I look, and then we followed up with some validation testing. But as we have done that the last several years, we kinda get more and more. So the computational side. But? It's very easy to see aircraft that was struck by birds and the level of damage because it usually is not just one bird usually they're flying into a grouping birds. So birds hit windshields knows Rome spurts, wings, Burns, hidden vertical stabilisers, or horizontal stabilisers. burs being adjusted into engines are a huge problem because you can. On a wing, you can penetrate that leading edge and get into the thing. They got a fuel got fuel coming out right on an engine. It's going to go through that engine and you can lose or maybe maybe worn more than one bird typically but you can lose that particular engine and just like you're talking about with sully where they had birds go in and both engines in Las both engines so. It's. It's a really serious thing in if around airports that have bird probes and it tends to be at least in our part of the World Canadian geese that migrate want to hang out at the end of the runway. You'll see things like these noise canons, propane cannons at fire off once a minute to encourage the burs lands somewhere else because at a Canadian geese is bigger than a four. Pampered. Right So if you hit something that's obviously hopefully, you're catching it closer to the crown where you're going to get slower speed. So the energy last but the amount of damage that can occur bird impact is substantial substantial to the point where now we do a lot of testing to make sure that the bird can't bring down an airplane but still in the sully situation burs going both engine just really not much you're gonna be able to do their. The FAA puts up notices about where birds are. Philadelphia had a problem for a while. So yeah, it's it's really really serious, but it happens pretty often a lot more. It happens more often than lightning strikes in my opinion early, the damage more visible the lightning strikes because it is a debt left somewhere. On, the aircraft when shield knows radio. All over all over well so these engines are pulling in so much air and creating so much thrust. Create like vortex where a is more likely to go into the engineer or not really so much everything's happening. So fast I, mean you can kind of suck it in if it's if it's not directly in that lie in that line it can definitely could pull it in just grab. Yeah. It can kind of graphics. They do have some Massar but it's the engines pulling so much air sucking so much Erin to it it's it's like a vacuum just going to say anything it's around it into it So the engine manufacturers, Ge's Pratt and Whitney's the. Royce look at that as part of the one of their certification task is to validate what has a bird. Goes to the engine because what you don't. WanNa do is. Start loosening the heavy rotating parts of the rotors. Rhoda per situation. So not knowing you lose a bird, but then he got this flying grenade of an engine blowing holes in the wing and the fuselage and tail, and all this other stuff causes other problems. So it's it's a really serious certification thing but when we don't think about that much. I don't think of all the years I don't think about an aircraft has actually struck a bird I've seen damage from it but close but I don't think I've been an airplanes actually struck a bird. Have you ever been an airplane? That's? Not. What it now now makes me very nervous. So. Limited have my eye out for these birds album. I worry about it with a Canadian geese are or this large flocks in occasionally see it editor ports as you drive into an airport like There's a large flock of whatever geese hanging out down here. That probably smarter hope not taking off in that direction today.
The U.S. Hypersonics Program Matures
"We're here because really in the span of a couple of weeks, our knowledge of the US hypersonic weapons program is significantly expanded and a lot of these disparate pieces that we have been tracking are falling into place. Steve. been at the forefront of reporting a lot of these developments. Can you summarize the highlights for us? Right well, just to kind of give you a a an update Eh cross the entire spectrum because it's a huge portfolio. So let's go back to March that was the last flight test hypersonic flight tests that the DOD has has carried out with that was with the blog zero common hypersonic lied body. That's the glide body that's going to be the front end for the army's long range hypersonic weapon and the Navy's intermediate range, conventional prom strike, which is summering launch missile. That was a successful flight test It was later described by president trump as a as the super duper missile We were trying to figure out what that was, but that according to CNN's reporting. That's that's what he was referring to. At the time. The Air Force meanwhile has got a couple of different programs. Ongoing one is the AGM one, eighty, three A. Rapid Response Weapon Lockheed Martin design for for both the front front end and the integration, and they did a captive carry flight tests that would appear to be pretty successful just a couple of weeks ago and they are moving that into flight test with the FRONTON actually incorporating the design from the tactical boost glide program from Darpa that was supposed to be an independent separate. Well, not quite there. They are linked that was supposed to be a separate flight test program that they've now folded that into the aero vehicle design and will continue testing that through era there. was also on the Hawk programs. That's the next set of flight tests that are supposed to be happening That's hypersonic everything weapon concepts which is basically a scream jet powered cruise missile There's a Lockheed version and Raytheon version We know back in May that the Lockheed attempted to do a captive carry test with their version of the Hawk missile but there was some kind of failure during the flight test We still don't know exactly what it, what it was but it appeared to be somewhat damaging and but since then we hit me for nothing about. where. They're going with that except for the fact that the Air Force a few weeks ago, launched a follow on program to develop an operational prototype. Jet Powered cruise missile that you know would be a follow on to the the program But in the competition Air Force basically selected three companies a couple of weeks ago to form the competitive field for the follow on Hawk missile and those three companies are Lockheed Raytheon and Boeing. Which of course, the interesting part there is Boeing locking Raytheon are heavily involved in the Arrow Program and the TV g program and Hawk program, but Boeing has been shut out. So this gives them a chance to come back into the hypersonic Arena for at one point buying of course, was the sort of champion in especially in the air breathing propulsion space with the x fifty one program, and if you go way back I'm sure guy could could chime in on on these programs would be like the space shuttle and fifteen with Boeing's legacy companies so. That kind of brings us up to speed with where we are right now.
Grilled by Lawmakers, Big Tech Turns Up the Gaslight
"Everything all week just to give you the top five stories, and this week we're going to kick it off with the four major tech CEOs appearing before Congress. And as I looked at it, and as I watched the bits and pieces of it, it started to remind me of something, and I thought, What was that? What is that? I looked up in Webster's dictionary online, the definition of gas lighting. You know what that means? Gas lighting. It's a form of psychological manipulation. Distorting the truth. To confuse aren't still doubt is the official definition until the other person questions reality. Because there they were Amazon's Jeff because those apples Tim Cook, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Google soon DARPA Che telling Congress why they shouldn't be broken up where they should be regulated. So America's CEO censors who for years have spied on all of us in a cellar data, and you tell this to be true, But Jeff Bezos actually said the on ly things People trust more than amazon dot com. Is their personal position and the U. S military, really. He's got AA lot of high hopes and not very humble opinion of himself, which I said that users clearly don't want to be tracked by those little bits of code called cookies, but Wait a minute. Didn't last year he have a speech where he defended them. Yes, he did. As a matter of fact, As for Tim Cook, he only got 30 questions compared to 60. The other Fab forgot. I guess they all like their iPhones there on the hill. And then there's Mark Zuckerberg, who argue that Facebook is not a monopoly, even though members of Congress Reference 2012 when Facebook bread they comprise 95% of all social media. And that's also right around the time that they purchased Instagram, which Zuckerberg considered a threat. He also did not remember paying teens to spy on them through Facebook research that app Which wasn't even two years ago. Maybe Mark needs little protection, don't you think? Well, the problem with these hearings is that the tech leaders or tech prose, and the folks at the hearing's not so much. One guy actually asked a question Mark Zuckerberg because he thought that Facebook on Twitter Goessling at its best, folks. Alright, Number
Big tech CEOs testify before Congress
"So, this hearing just going to say it, it was six hours of chaos. So. So many things like individual moments of pure chaos happened this hearing. But because every member of Congress was only given five minutes to ask the questions in and they moved on, no one could process the moments of cash. So here are some things that happened during this hearing. Jeff. bezos just started eating nuts on his call. That was just a thing that you started snacking for the first ninety minutes. It appears that basis had tech issues was operating in some kind of delay. So we didn't hear from him. They just answer any questions and they'd take a ten minute break Jeff. bezos could fix his computer. Amazing. Jim Jordan, who McKenna pointed out. On the show last week is always sort of chaos element. Try to talk over several members of Congress got yelled to put his mass back on floated. Just elaborate conspiracy theories. was when I say was chaos I. Don't know if there's any other way to describe it. I. Think that led a lot of people to think the hearing itself didn't accomplish its goals, but I think in many ways it did. But Kennedy you WanNa Kinda go through what the committee was trying to accomplish the themes they were pointed at in. How hearing played out, right. So okay. First off. Harkening back to last week I mentioned Jim. Jordan's mountain dew obsession. Definitely drink a handful those throughout the hearing I took notes in screen shots. So, I, called it. But regardless of their pores soda choices, there were a lot of lawmakers who definitely did their homework and I think that was really apparent throughout the entire hearing and when I look at. The picture that they tried to paint I think that became really clear in chairman Sicily's opening statements. So this is the guy who liked. And spearheaded the entire investigation from the beginning, and in those opening statements, he pointed out that yeah Apple Amazon Google facebook. There are different in a lot of ways and they exhibit anticompetitive behaviors potentially allegedly and a lot of different ways. But what they tried to pull together and was a story, and it's really hard to tell a story and five minute fragments. But what happened yesterday was Sicily. Ni, and a lot of the Democrats on the Committee wanted to point out that these companies they become bottlenecks for distribution whether that's information or just like APP stores marketplace's they control what gets distributed in how what was really key to the investigation was how? How they survey competitors. If you have so much control dominance over a market or a specific part of the tech industry, you have a lot of insight into your competitors and you can do a lot of dangerous things with that, and then lastly, after that dominance has gained, it's how they abuse it. Right? How they abuse it to make harder for small businesses in competitors and I think that's exactly what Cellini pointed out in the beginning and I think they did a poor job that storytelling throughout the process. But I think that's also our job. Right is to pull that evidence together and tell that story for them in a way that isn't like. Yes, no yelling at CEOS and like stopping them and I think by getting that in the evidentiary record doing all this questioning, I think they really did achieve their goal in the end. Yeah. I mean, I think the thing that happened sort of next to the hearing was that they released a bunch of documents from these one point, three, million documents of clutch. Over the past year, they released pretty targeted selection documents for every company showing some of this stuff, Casey, I wrote a story about. facebook. INSTAGRAM. My I'm going to frame this email or mark Zuckerberg. Literally one sentence, no period. The Andrew says I need to figure out. I'M GONNA buy instagram like I would love to just be in a place were sending that email like super casually like I got this thing to figure out and it's not like am I gonNa buy the model of the car. It's like instagram. I've been thinking of the text messages where so and so says that Mark Zuckerberg's didn't go destroy mode on instagram ever since they got that up. Case she this to Kevin and right that text was. Yes. Well, it was Kevin. System was talking to an investor and Kevin said to the investor. If we don't sell well, mark, go into destroy mode on us and the investor side probably. Of course, stray casual. So there's just a lot of documents and I think one of the functions of hearing was to get those documents into the official congressional record to make the CEO's account for them. That did not seem very successful to me. Is like a takeaway people should have from this hearing, right? No. I think a lot of people that go into these hearings are expecting like these big Gotcha moments and expecting like a lot of news and all this stuff. But it really, it wasn't oversight hearing. You know it wasn't. They didn't come. They came at this like in a report last earlier this week that they came out at as investigators. They didn't come at it to make a big show horse and pony show out of it, and yet I think the CEO's didn't. The record well enough to the extent that they could have. But there was definitely, I was expecting them to do a lot less evasion and I expected a lot less room probation with the documents, but it's just the process of a Congressional hearing. It's. It's hard to do that in a congressional hearing. But if you put those documents out there, you get the CEO's on the record a little bit who does excite this excites the FTC. J, and that's who can take this next and then it's also congress. You know they can't break up a tech company, but they can regulate going forward and it's those three key themes that I pointed out earlier that they could regulate. You know what I mean. They could legislate to forbid companies from surveying competitors and things like that, and that's where this goes. So the format of the hearing, every member and five minute chunks, it seemed very clear that the Democrats had some sort of coordinated evidentiary strategy, they would start and. And they would say, I, want to read this email to you. What did you mean by this email and then Jeff bezos would say something like I have. No idea is on works. I. Was real pattern that developed was basis really not doing or claiming he definitely knows claiming not really no way Wayne is under the thing they did or they would ask sooner Pichai about the very granular add deal google made by an ad product, and soon I, would say I'll get back to you, which is basically all responses. So the Democrats seemed like they were coordinated to move through their documents. The Republicans seem to be doing something else that also seem coordinated intentional, but what was their focus because that seemed clear split my takeaway from Jim Jordan who? We got into earlier, he he was interviewing. As if they were all Jack Dorsey. And as we talked about like, yeah, he invited Jack Dorsey to testify, but he doesn't sit on the antidote subcommittees. Anything. He says, it just doesn't matter. So it sounded to me as if he prepared questions Jack Dorsey and then it was like, oh, he's not coming I'll ask Tim Cook the same questions. Another completely crazy moment that happened just seen by and five minute chunks is that. Represented Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin Dear Sweet Wisconsin. Definitely. Asked Mark Zuckerberg why the Donald Junior was banned from twitter and mark. Zuckerberg was happening on twitter facebook and there was just like a moment of confused silence, and then he tried to move on and that just sort of floated by in the river of chaos to tell you how much chaos there was kneeling. When you started to tell that story, I thought you were going to tell the story about when Jim Jordan asked him cook if the famous one, thousand, nine, hundred, four, Apple Super Bowl, AD was actually about twenty twenty cancel culture, which is another thing that really happened. I think that's out of context. He didn't ask him. He said clearly, this is. That's definitely what Steve Jobs was thinking IBM is canceled culture and Apple's going to break it with hammer and Jeff. Bezos said that social media is a nuance destruction machine and all this crazy stuff from that. It was a wild will that that particular question when Jim Jordan asked, do you support the cancel culture mov, you could see the CEOS like. 'cause they went in order. He asks them all in order. So First Tim Cook just like basically muttered nothing. Here's like I don't. I support speech whatever. The iphone a keyboard like that was his answer. Sooner per child also, just like muttered, right? He's like Google has always supported free expression Zuckerberg like saw the opportunity and took it and the forces of liberalism I rising I, and then basis was like I cannot. I cannot do in like went for it, and that was just totally insane moment. But it also seems like the Republicans were intentional to try to create their own moments where they were yelling at CEOS about bias on platforms is obviously something cover a. At. You were paying a lot of attention that case you're paying a lot of attention to it. Do you think that was effective in creating because you know there's like a parallel conservative Universe Jim? Jordan was on Tucker. Carlson. Last night like was that effective or d think that the CEO's were able to sort of tamp down on interesting the Tucker Carlson pointed out that Google and other companies are all big donors to Jim Jordan another folks. So that is a weird side, but I think it was actually besides the moment where they mixed up twitter with facebook I. Think this was much more effective off. Off Topic yelling about technology than we usually see like are genuinely issues that like they are upset about that, they could point to largely around like cove nineteen misinformation and they could at least like pick those topics and stick to them rather than kind of asking vague questions about like, why is my phone listening to me? Well, they're definitely asked questions about why are my campaign emails getting filtered by G mail? Yes. I should. I should mention that they have really and they have all of these cases where they ask about extremely specific one off incidents that anyone who has used social media knows happens constantly. And, then turn them into a sinister pattern. But I think they managed to come off as sounding more like they understood what they were talking about the unusual. I think that was a real theme of the hearing, Casey. What did you think of this sort of bias side show that occurred? Well, I mean the the idea that conservative voices are being suppressed is foundational to the conservative movement and is behind the rise of conservative talk radio. It was behind the rise of Fox News. Now that social media exists, we have seen it in this new form, but it is sort of being presented as extra, sinister and worthy of. Some sort of legislative intervention what frustrates me about it is that much more than newspapers or or cable news like Mark Zuckerberg Dorsey. These people benefit hugely from having all possible voices on their platform. None of them is incentivized to drive conservatives off their platform. What they are incentivized to do is have rules that make the place safe and welcoming. So that people want to hang out there and so to the extent that there are issues on the platform, they've largely come because these platforms have rules. And you know you would think that a bunch of free marketeers would realize that the alternative to the system that they're so mad about would be creating a new system, but they don't seem at all interested in doing that. So I just sort of dismissed all of them as charlatans I actually thought it was interesting that the opposite track came up, which was the Stop Hey for profit campaign I kind of wasn't expecting that. The representative Raskin I believe asked facebook. Basically, why aren't you kicking more hate speech off. I forget who else asked like look is the point that you're so big. You don't care about advertiser boycotts I. Mean, you know it will here. Here is a fact that the number one complaint that facebook gets from its users, the thing that users. About. FACEBOOK is that it removes too much content and so if you're running the place, you do have to take these complaints seriously in a way. Right? It might not be you know that you shadow band conservative whatever that even means on social network in twenty twenty. But the fact that you're removing content is really upsetting people. So you can't dismiss that idea entirely, but I still don't feel like we're having that intellectually honest conversation about it. So this was definitely I feel like you can connect the you control distribution. We're GONNA show the abuses of power narrative. We got other. Democrats. With the you control distribution. You're banning conservatives right like I. Think what's Sensenbrenner Again, cups and conservatives are consumers to is that people don't realize that like fifty percent of the population in many ways. But facebook has like famous conservatives working its highest levels Kevin. We last week, we're talking about Kevin Roose keeps sharing the list. List of the most engaged content from crowd tangle. It's all conservative content, and that's so problematic for facebook that they're. They're pushing back with other metrics and graphs of their own, making the facts just aren't there, but it doesn't seem to be convincing. Brett Kevin is being asked to recuse himself from facebook case because he's like best friends with facebook I, AP I wrote a column almost two years ago. Now, arguing that conservatives were trying to redefine. Any conservative identified person having any unwanted outcome on a social network, right? So bias is your name was higher than mine in search results. Bias is used suggested that I follow a Democrat and not a Republican right, and if you take action on your policies that apply to everyone against me a conservative that is biased against conservatives, right. So and by the way I have to say this has been hugely successful because we've talked about it. How many minutes now and the longer that these discussions. Discussions. Go on. They just sort of refi people's minds. The idea that there really is a vast conspiracy to silence conservative speech because he's networks are so big millions of conservatives are having experiences like this every day, and now there is an ideology that is basically a religion for them to attach to, which is although Silicon Valley liberals are out to get. Reason I wanted to talk about the conservative side show, which in many ways was a circus is it feels like the notion that we should be punitive to the companies or mad at the company's. Bipartisan, right we were. We were not looking at a hearing where the Democrats were on the attack. Republicans are saying we love. Apple. We're looking at hearing where they were. Everyone was mad. There are a couple of exceptions to that. There were a couple of I think sensenbrenner and a few other folks were like look we want to be clear. Big is not bad. We just WANNA make sure we're not punishing you for your success, but you were like almost entirely, right? Yeah. I. Mean I. think that's it's important to. To capture that mood like Jeff Bezos Mark Zuckerberg, Tim, Cook soon. Darpa, try they usually get to finish whatever sentence they start saying. Right. They're not used to being interrupted. Their thoughts are usually like you know they get to live in complete sentences and people take them seriously here in five in intervals, they were interrupted almost every time they started speaking to be told that they were wrong that they were filibuster at one point Sicily said stop thinking is for the questions. We can just assume they're all good questions. They. Were getting yelled at and they're going yell that about a variety of things that were pretty specific. So you kind of in your kind of structure here. The first one was controlling distribution. What did you hear as a hearing went on the indicated to that? The committee had a case here? I think the apple's APP store is one thing you know charging thirty percent cuts on certain things is just controlling an APP store. It's the same thing with Amazon's marketplace. They can inherently in control what gets placed and what gets sold and you know if they want to play with search results on Amazon, they can do that, and then on facebook and Google, it's not just like products and software that's information. And it could be information when it's like Google. Google. Stealing yelps, texture views right in putting those in its little info boxes in search queries in facebook if facebook is just like an. Mation, distribution platform and. It can decide Algorithm Mickley. Knowingly. What people get to see this bution was very keen to the committee's hearing yesterday and they pointed out different aspects in which you know each company exhibited that kind of behavior. So the one that will you bring up apple? We wrote about this, say there's much emails. Apples document production is just one hundred and thirty pages of unrelated emails and whatever order see it's like scan through it. So there's a lot of little stories in there. There's one about right to repair and apple realizing it needed to repair. By watching PR people operate by reading their emails journalists. Very entertaining. They're like we had a break like here's our strategy. Here's we're GONNA. That's all in there. You can look at it, but there's a lot about the APP store itself and how they're going to use the mechanics of the APP store to control their platform, and it started at the beginning like the first emails in this production from twenty, ten there. From Phil, Schiller Steve Jobs saying, are we GONNA? Let Amazon Sell Books in the kindle store. Store, it felt like I saw an Amazon ad was hard to watch this hard to watch this ad where a person's reading a book on an iphone in the kindle APP in the pick up an android phone keep reading. He's like literally like it was hard to watch like Schiller's at home like pain what a customer is having an experience that good it really just. Heart and so he's like it was hard to watch. You fours Steve Jobs. They're like we gotta shut it down jobs is the bookstore will be the only bookstore on the APP. Store. That's the way it's going to be everyone's gotta used to it. We know that restricting payments will hurt other things, but that's what we're doing and they started there in two thousand ten and they pulled it out, and then that ladders up into everything that we've seen with, hey, ladders up into the analysis group showing up to. Apple, can pay them to say that there's independent study has revealed. Everybody has a thirty percent cut. It has landed up into Tim Cook, forwarding. He gets a letters from developers that are in this direction. It's like apples breaking my heart and he just like Ford's it. Tim, Cook forwards that email to filter credit eighty, just as thoughts like amazing like they are constantly thinking about the APP store as a mechanism of control for the platform in the leverage and other deals. So the other one was apple is this Amazon one which I have very mixed feelings on saying that this is bad or legal I'm curious for all of your thoughts famously. Did, not have the prime video APP on the Apple TV and all these other places apple, Amazon came to a deal. There's an entire presentation in this production like the slide deck of how the deal is going to work. Apple got to be the preferred seller of its own product. So third parties cancel. Apple. Products, Amazon pages, they got. They have a custom by flow. They've custom product pages, all the stuff in return. Amazon got a lower commission on the APP store and gets to Selatan products which no. No like you can rent a movie from the Amazon APP on the Apple TV, no one else gets to it in one world. This is just pure platform collision, right? Apple cut VIP deal for big companies because it wanted something and you could say this is legal in another world. It's like this is how deals work apple something valuable. Amazon s something valuable and they came to a conclusion wherever made more money and quite frankly the consumer experience platform has got better. How do you read that? Casey? That is good and fair analysis of it. I. Think I did read slightly more scandalous. Tones into it in part because apple would never acknowledge that some developers are more important to it than others even though if you assume that that's true, I think maybe one of the things that's frustrating about it is there is no transparency accountability around which developers get sweetheart deals is that once you hit a certain threshold of revenue will cut your price. Why couldn't they extend that deal to everyone right? Or is it just if we withhold something that seems particularly valuable, we can eventually drag you to the table. Table, which is sort of what seems like happened here. I think in all cases, what I'm always looking for is the accountability, right like and some sense of of equitable treatment of developers and I understand the guys are always going to get the best treatment, but it can that be publicly visible. Can it be acknowledged and there'd be routes for others to achieve that same level of success and treatment, and that I'll just seems missing here. Did you buy Tim Co? He said it twice. It was obviously A. Glimmer, of sympathy for all four CEOS. There is a lot of reporting that they had spent months preparing for this hearing like being grilled there, they'd hire outside law firms. They. Practiced they all clearly had soundbites memorized in none of them. Got To say him because it kept getting interrupted. Tim Cook had this one where he is like if we're the gatekeepers, the gates are open wider than ever. We've gone from five hundred. APPS to one point seven, he said like. A whole speech. and. The thing is there's fierce competition for developers. They don't like our store can do for android the windows. For xbox and PS. Four. Which I was like the idea that adobe is going to be like we don't want to be on the IPAD. Here's PS. Four Photoshop is insanity to me. I'm going to build a spreadsheet. APP. For the five. That's how frustrated with Tim Cook. To that ring. True to you I. Mean, there's no, it does not ring true. There is a, there is a duopoly. In the United States when it comes to smartphones, iphones have majority share in the United States and you can't say, well, you know there's there's a rogue fork of android in Malaysia that you could go develop for if you really wanted to and have that come across as a credible argument to Americans. Right it is. Natural for any monopolist to spend most of its time, arguing that it is much smaller and much less consequential as as you think it is and they're essentially always asking you to ignore what is in front of your face, which is that they are the giant. They are in control. What they say goes, and it doesn't matter which small businesses get hurt along the. The. Way I would point out that the contact and we're gonNA talk about earnings eventually. But the context for that is apple had its biggest third quarter ever this month, their revenues went up eleven percent year over year, they're making obviously making billions of dollars in their services revenue, which is a lot of the narrative around the APP stores increasing that services line. Also went up. I think it was thirteen billion. So you're right. They're very big in their earnings the day after the hearing did nothing. To reduce that impression. I want to switch to Amazon a little bit McKenna. You really focused Amazon was basis first time up there. They came at him a lot about marketplace. How did you think that went I think it went pretty good. I. Think. John Paul specifically was just like killer her questions with breakout star. Yeah. She was just like killer and she's the representative for. SEATTLE. So this is where Amazon is right. So she just like killed it and. And I think there were a couple of instances in the documents and in questioning yesterday that really pulled important things out there was like testimony from one bookseller who was like, yeah. We just can't sell a category of books and we don't know why Amazon doesn't let us do that just like testimony like that or even when it comes to like acquisitions, the ring acquisition especially, I wrote about that today through the documents and how. They said, this is for market position. This is a for technology, your talent or anything. We just bought this and that's something that base said again, yesterday he was just very clear. It's like, yeah, we do buy things market position, which is like so insane just here like the richest person in the world. But like, yeah, we're buying market position. It's just what happens. That's another one I have mixed feelings right, and by the way, people should read McKenna story because those documents have just a very funny breakdown like the pros and cons of buying. Buying ring in many of the cons like what if this turns into nest, which if you're just the verge cast listeners like it's just like the Keyword Bingo, but it's fine to say, we're buying market position like this isn't the best product out there, but it's the category of video. doorbells is not huge, right? So to by the the market leader in video doorbells is maybe the most rational use of the money. What is the problem that you think the committee was trying to show an address sense of we're just going to market position. Pointing out, they can just do whatever they want and how casual it is, and there really isn't. It's really funny to read an email like that, and we could buy it or we could just copy it or are. We could just watch. You know that was one of the emails that base from someone. Those are just three options you know and it's like just pick and choose you know. Pointed out like a lot. Just that email itself really pointed out just how easy it is for them. They used a lot of that time history to talk about copycat behaviors and to talk about just like you know buying up competitors and it just seeing that all in one little e mail having to do with the ring was like really i. think it was really kind of I opening and especially like useful for the committee. So Amazon got hit a lot for the data collection side of it of copying competitors. bezos did not seem to have great answers there. Right. So that's the. The thing they got in trouble with this. There is that Wall Street. Journal article from like April where employees were literally like, yeah. We dip into data and we use that to guide our own private label products and everybody was like Whoa and Amazon basins. Yesterday said, well, we do have a policy that bans that but giant pointed out yesterday. It's like, okay. So what's your enforcement look like you can have the policy, but like if you don't enforce it, then it's like meaningless. And then yesterday I. Think Paul was like, can you give me a yes or no answer? Do you dip into data and he's like I can't I can't give you. Yes or no, and we're just like we're looking into it. The story had anonymous sources. So that isn't very helpful to us. You know what I mean. So that was one of the main things and that Wall Street Journal article and I think it's the same kind of examples in the committee's documents. They point out specific examples like car trunk, organizers of all things. It's like weird little products like Amazon's like this is a little hot. Maybe we should do that. So I, I think. I, think they made a good case yesterday. Yesterday on that. Yeah. I mean bezos brought up that Wall Street Journal, Article himself twice, and he was like, well, your policy against it. But I can't guarantee never happened. Then there is a strange just didn't come across clear I. Think I know what the committee was trying to get at their like US aggregate seller data when there's only three sellers and then only to sellers? Yes, I. Think what they're getting at is when you're down to the aggregate data of two companies, you heard effectively looking at individual data. What is the problem? They're like the I get what you're doing. You're just reducing the denominator to get to one, but like it, why is that particular problem? Right? Well, none of these. Dipping into individual seller data and looking at aggregate data. That's not a legal. There is no law. This is all voluntary of Amazon. So they have a voluntary policy where like we can't do individual seller data, but they say nothing against aggregate and aggregate what you're getting at eight. Here you is. Does the same thing if it's just like some goofy little product they. They bring up pop stock. It's all the time before pop tops in a moment. Right? There's only like one pop. So company like you know pop soggy, it was kind of an innovative product. It's like well, if there's only two of them and use the aggregate data, you you you have everything you need to know you know about that product line looking aggregate. If that's what you decide to qualify as do you as you're looking through the other Amazon documents and other stuff. So anything jump out at you is something the committee was trying to prove or get at. The questioning seemed very focused on. Like are you using the state at a copy products? Are you buying things? You shouldn't buy. There's one question which I did not understand why came up about DMC. Take downs on twitch and Jeff as just had this look of panic in his eyes. He's like I don't know man I bought Wedge because my kids want to. Do something like that was like the side show stuff, but the real focus here, it just seemed like it was definitely in the marketplace, right? Amazon, everyone came at Amazon for the marketplace. That's what everybody knows him as like they have all these little sides. They got rain. They got Alexa Alexa was one thing too. That was kind of interesting. It's like. Are you buying things like ring to put Alexa into and dislike expand your like Titan Ism as like an Internet Internet connected home. Thing and make that more closed off and walled gardening. That was one thing. But no, it was just focusing on how much power they have to kind of change. What happens in the marketplace to kind of decide what companies in what products are able to come up on the first page of results. You know that's also something that they dug into Google and in something that one of those like themes that kind of ties everything together. We should say they all spend a lot of time talking about counterfeit goods, and why is it Amazon removed? Fake stuff from the platform and how much is it profiting off of you know selling pick rolexes? Is it surprising? The whole foods didn't show up at all they're. Like that is a really massive thing. Amazon owns that. Is it moving into a huge new product category? I think whole foods is not an online marketplace, which was the title of the hearing, not that that restricted anybody from doing anything except that, one of the things Amazon says is we have lots of competition from offline marketplaces, right? Brought up kroger a lot I mean, this is the case he's point. They all made. It seem like they were beset at any moment. They could be crushed by the likes of stop and Shop Right? Like I think the point though was really on the. Digital. Experience Consumers have and like I, don't know Ho-. Foods fits. Into that narrative, especially, because it is itself not dominant like they bought it because you needed to grow in their. Good at that at my question for you on the Amazon stuff was when you think about, we talk about two thirty a lot right like you and I in particular spent a lot time to thirty, which regulates with the platform can do with content. There's not really an equivalent of two thirty for goods on store. Right like there's some case is out there saying like you're liable for what what happens on your online store page, but Amazon doesn't have that like second order of like Messi nece around it that twitter and facebook to with two thirty, I. Mean, it gets invoked a lot for marketplace's, but it's way messier. Well, I just wanted to like this question at counterfeits question about ranking the store like they are even more free than any twitter is to to sort tweets algorithm. Algorithm clear to modern like it just their store. Do you think that they're like that Algorithm transparency? Your wire things ranked. Did you catch a sense that that's where the regulation is GonNa go. So much of the conversation around Amazon really felt like it was individuals sellers being wronged for reasons of Amazon being unresponsive or stealing. It's data. So I don't know it didn't. It didn't seem like a really big focus of the hearing, but it is a huge deal. Yeah. The, digital marketplace frame of this, which is where we have talked to. Cellini. That's where he's going right like facebook and Google very digital. They have like they don't do physical goods. Really. Apple is the APP store. It's all digital goods. Amazon is the one where it's. Front to a lot of physical things, and that is the only place where I can see this regulation needing to make some sort of like major meaningful distinction in I. Didn't see it in the hearing, but I was curious of you caught a glimmer of it. I'm not positive that they have to make a huge distinction there like depending on what they come up with because. So much of this is about their companies and whatever product they produced. The issue is more or less whether or not they're being surveilled and unfairly by targeted and crushed by that data surveillance. All right. We have gone for forty minutes. We should take a quick break. I said I wasn't going to go by company and it happens. So we should come back and talk with facebook Ango. We'll be right back. This is advertiser content. When I say utopia what comes to mind. Birds Chirping lush natural beauty dialed up and vibrant technicolor. Is it within reach. Your world world. World. explained. You are an essential part of the perfect social body. Every Body Matt Place. Everybody happy now while the peacock original series, brave new world takes place in a scientific futuristic utopia. A concept is nothing new Sir Thomas more. I introduced the theory five hundred years ago. But we keep looking for that community identity stability of aldous Huxley's Utopia and not finding it Americans are the unhappiest they've been in decades, and we're increasingly lonely whereas in a utopia. Everyone belongs to everyone else. In nineteen forty-three, the psychologist Abraham. maslow's developed a theory of Utopia. One that allows total self determination in basic terms. maslow's theory says that in Utopia, we decide for ourselves, what we need and how we're GONNA get it in Huxley's Utopia citizens always get what they want and don't want what they can't get. Sounds. Pretty good. Right. Then why can't we make it happen? For a Utopian Society the work we might need to disband some of the things we hold dearest marriage government privacy individualism even family. See for yourself. If a Utopian world is as perfect as it seems watch brave new world now streaming only on peacock. These are really difficult crazy stressful times, and if you're trying to sort of cope, it could be helpful to find something that gets beyond like doom scrolling and like obsessive worried. But digs into what is really going on underneath the surface, and that's what the weeds is all about I. Matthew Yglesias. Weeds podcast here on the box meeting podcast network. This is podcast for people who really want to understand the policy debates and policy issues that shaping our world. We've seen now more than ever like how relevant policy is to our actual lives, but so much in the news isn't focused on really understanding and explaining detail way if that sounds good to you, join us for the weeds, every Tuesday and Friday to find out what's going on why matters and what we can do about it. You could download the weeds on apple spotify or wherever else you get your podcasts. Tracy. When it comes to facebook I turn to you. FACEBOOK is patience consumer of startups as what we've learned. Yeah. But you said something to me yesterday was interesting, which is everyone else's problems are forward looking and it feels like facebook's problems are actually in the past break for people explain what you mean. Yeah. So when Congress is looking at any trust with respect to these four companies for three of them, it's It's sort of about the marketplaces that their operating right now with facebook, the question is much more about should we have allowed it to buy serum? Should we have allowed it to buy WHATSAPP and most of the antitrust conversation that was around facebook yesterday was all about that. What did Mark Zuckerberg know about Instagram, and when did he know it? We wrote a story based on some documents that the house released yesterday. In which facebook has clearly identified instagram as a competitor. In at least some ways and wants to go after it and knock it off the table, and so that's kind of where the focuses their facebook and Burke did get a lot of other questions yesterday, but it tended to be much more about content moderation and things that don't have a lot to do with antitrust. So there was weird section where they asked the face. Face Research APP in the novel, Vpn? Any kind of got lost well, explain what happened and I'm curious reactions. Yeah. So facebook has a bunch of nifty tech tools to figure out what's trending which APPs or the kids using, and so that can essentially have an early warning system if it needs to consider acquiring something or more likely in these days, go out clone it. and. So Zuckerberg was asked about the way that the company uses these systems and if they are anti competitive I, think you know traditional antitrust law probably would not say copying an APP feature is anti competitive, but could lobby written in the future about it shirt I. Think the one that caught me was I mean, this is what I'm. McKenna's points from earlier is like one of the themes here is, are you so dominant that you can collect data that's unfair and then use that to crush or killer competitors, and definitely bought the Inaba VPN to do it. That's true. Now, when I've asked executives at facebook about this, what they'll say is they don't get surprised anymore. When you have three point, one billion people using your apps around the world. You know what links they're sharing, you know what they're talking about. And so you're not going to need some kind of specialized tool to know that WHATSAPP is really taking off. Right. So they would argue that, yes, these tools were useful to them, but you know at their scale, they know what's popular now, which doesn't really seem like addresses, the problem is reached. The fact that we're so big that we're all knowing is maybe not the defense that they sometimes presented as so here's what I didn't get. I thought, Zuckerberg I want to the instagram. What's about who's issues, but on the facebook research front, the data front, they him about this APP facebook research, which you were giving to teens. They were deploying with an enterprise certificate that story broke apple revoke the certificate, and all of facebook's internal APPs went dark, and this is a scandal story after story about it, they went on for two days. So I can I, don't recall that APP? Just how he you know, he remembers the day that all facebook's internal APPS went down and people couldn't go to the cafeteria. I would agree I found that answer. Extremely, ed? Persuasive. that. Do you think that was like actually strategic for him to be like, I, don't know and then come back later and correct the record I do remember when that happened I. Mean. I really don't know I mean also you know during a six hour hearing, it's also possible that you just you get flustered or you miss here something or or something because. Yeah. As as you say, I'm sure he remembers the day that apple turned off their internal APPS I mean. Honestly. Seems like an opportunity to talk about apple's market power, and the fact that you know a day of work canceled at facebook because apple got mad. But I think most of the CEO's didn't go into yesterday a wanted to pick fights with each other. It was kind of sad that they didn't. I was Kinda hoping that Tim Cook take a shot at soccer burger. Point that the other two APP platforms I was expecting it. It was there. It was. There was all there. So cellini ended and he ended the whole meeting with closing statement. He said, some of these companies didn't get broken out. They all need to get regulated in the off too much power that some of them I. don't these breaking up apple. What sort of break. Right like. The division get sent into the corner thing about what it's done. Right. Does should spin out the finder team I've always wanted to. A clean is always that they want to. They want the APP store to be separate from the IPHONE. Basically, that's the thing I always hear. Can't break I. Think you can write some strong regulations but not playing you're on store, right. But like Elizabeth Warren's point was it's cleaner if it's two companies, but it's still a gigantic remedy that I don't think there's a lot of like like consumer or public opinion is going to walk into an Apple Cup I think you'll radio at marketplace. It seems very clear that we says some of them she broken up he is talking about facebook. I have a twenty percent conference level. He might be talking with Google and Youtube as well. But if he's going to say some of the need to get broken up like it's facebook, did you hear anything yesterday that supported that conclusion or Saudi stocks I? MEAN HE I don't remember which Republican it was, but he was like the Obama FTC looked at this and they said it was minding love. Obama. Right. Like. Why would we go back in time to relook at I? Mean, there is a belief and I mean. Somebody who thinks there could be a lot of benefit in instagram and WHATSAPP being different companies from facebook. And the reason you ask. So many questions about that acquisition as you're making the case that it never should have been approved in the first place, and so now you need to remedy it. So that was actually like the entire thrust of the argument against facebook yesterday. I think, you could probably make just as good a case that Amazon after spin out aws, but lawmakers chose not to make that case. Yeah. I think that also gets into. Politics of the acquisition of the time. To his credit is like nobody knew instagram would actually be a success like we made it a success. It didn't happen by itself. I, don't know if the lawmakers. By award, these guys said, but I don't know that he actually made that case very persuasively. and. Who knows I mean? That's like anything could have happened. Right? Cram could've stayed independent and rapidly grown and overtaken facebook like that's something that could have happened. It could have kind settled into a middle zone like snapchat or twitter seems more likely to me although I think probably would have been bigger than those two but. You're never going to know I mean it is true that facebook gave Mike and Kevin it instagram enormous resources. A lot of the reasons why Mike and Kevin sold was because running tiny startup that's blowing up is absolutely exhausting Mike. Krieger. was dragging his laptop all around San. Francisco. Because the servers were melting at all times of the day whenever Justin Bieber. Posted like the site stopped working and they really we need help. Finding a person who can quickly fix this? So we don't have to like that is the reason that they were entertaining these offers and wanted to sell it. So that is also thing that happened. Do you think that that same kind of argument or approach can apply to what's up? What's up basically did not come up yesterday and all the focus on Instagram, but that's the other one, right? Yeah, and we know weirdly a lot less about that acquisition I. Think it's because people in America just have so much less love for what's APP generally. That, it's never seemed as important. What happened to WHATSAPP as what happens to instagram even though WHATSAPP, is used, you know way more, it probably has way more engagement even than instagram does so I don't know why that didn't come up as often. We know there was a competitive bidding war for that as well. Goule. Wanted it as well. You know Mark Zuckerberg made them an offer, they can't refuse. Do you think everyday Google's we should've spent more money on what's whatsapp like this could have been solved. Should have, but Google has been placed under an ancient curse that prevents them from ever making the right decision about any social product. So it was doomed never to happen. It's fun looking through the documents and watching them casually say they should buy facebook dot com. Yeah, that. Point. That is how they talk like the window into these executives just casually being like we should just this thing or maybe not, or we should just copied ourselves and kill it before it gets any traction like it's repeated over and over again last facebook question. This one is like harder to parse because I. There's a chance, it's October is just joking around but. But. He's in many of these emails. He's like the thing about startups, as you can always buy them, which I think the committee thinks is a smoking gun, right? Like facebook's entire plan is to buy the competition to get the data from wherever they get it to say, oh, man, this apps popping, we just buy it and kill it before it competes with us. I. Think he actually said at one point. That's a joke. Yes, he did and I believe that you know it was two thousand, twelve, right? He was probably still in his mid twenties. At that point, the company was a lot smaller like people were joking around like there's more loose talk when companies are younger and I do think. It was it was part of that. I think the more interesting question becomes. Let's say facebook is telling the truth about everything. Let's say they thought it was going to be a successful acquisition, but they never knew it was gonna big as it became today and they invested in it and it got super big. Okay. Well, now, it's as big as it is. Should they be allowed to keep? Keep it or should they be forced to spend it out and if you're GONNA force them to spin it out. What's the argument that you'RE GONNA. Make about why one question that I have a lot is clearly the referral they're gonNa make, and it seems like if you don't have some other reason, we've heard hints that there's some other reason, the FTC scrutinize this that will eventually be revealed. But what you're saying is the antitrust standard at the time, the Consumer Hartman stand, which is still our standard. Says, you have to prove prices will go up both products for free. You're screwed. Right? There's nothing to review because you're not gonNA prove prove that free products are gonNA get more expensive. I think it's pretty unfair if you change the standard and you go back in time and say you missed that standard. So I think there has to be something else there. Well, what was the standard by which at and T. was broken up? Right? Like presumably at and T. didn't used to be that big, and then it just got really big and then they broke it up at least. That's the thumbnail understanding I have of that break-up. Well, yeah. But then reformed itself. Right. But because of lax antitrust regulation, right? Like it wasn't a naturally occurring phenomenon that all those APPS got back to the other or was that just sort of like inattention to capitalism It's like in the seventies and eighties. This is Tim moves book the cursive bigness in the seventies and eighties Robert Bork I can't talk about Robert on this podcast. Are we doing this right now. Robert was very influential judge Appellate Judge Federal Appellate? Judge. And basically moved the antitrust law to the consumer harm standard as part of a movement called and economics. A whole thing Robert. Bork. Mostly famous because he was not appointed. He was nominated Supreme Court by Reagan but they leaked video tape rental history, and then he didn't get nominated and that is where the expression getting bork's comes from. This is all true Netflix's still has to abide by videotape data privacy act is a whole. This is all true when facebook and Netflix had some partners, Nansen? Partnership. To. Automatically share your net flicks, watch history to facebook. They're like pending the change of this law which we are working on Robert Bork. He haunts us all. I'm sorry, I can't believe this much. Yeah I. think that's just like the law changed in the in the seventies and eighties, the standard change. The conversation right now is a very much about changing it back months and months ago, pre pandemic, we had an economist from I. Think it was Nyu Thomas Philippon came on the show, and he was like look you have this natural ab test going on in the world where the European Union when it formed was like, how do we get an economy like America's? So, we'll just take their competition policies pretty good, and at the same time we changed consumer harm standard. So everything you're seeing the EU is basically our old competition antitrust standard in. You can see how active they are in everything. Here's a new consumer welfare standard. Whether you believe, this is actually a functional Ab test given. The state of both governments is up for debate, but that was his point I thought. It was spare can say.
Tech giants Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon to face Congress
"Is happening because there is a recognition across government that these four very powerful and very important companies to the economy had become so dominant that they are harming consumers and harming competition. So Congress has summoned the CEOs of the corporations. Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and soon DARPA Chai of Google to ask them and interrogate them on their business practices and find out if these Internet giants that have become in many ways. The new trusts of our economy. If they are harming consumers in competition.
Big Tech CEOs Testimony Before Congress
"Today was the day as I record these words the big tech CEO's are still testifying before Congress. So I'm going to have to do a summary of what I've seen just in the first couple of hours or so and leave some of the juicier question and answer back and forth for tomorrow. I up a note on the format that we've been seeing. Yes. All of the CEOS were testifying remotely. They were using Cisco Webex as the video conferencing tool and it seemed to work fairly well at least right until this very moment as I turned off the stream to go into the booth to record this, they took a ten minute recess because apparently one of the witnesses. was having an issue with their stream or feed, and I'm wondering if it might have been Jeff Bezos because at least thus far were almost an hour and a half into the testimony and he hadn't been asked a single question. Anyway back to the whole idea of testifying remotely if I were going to do one of those rate, my video call backgrounds reports. Bezos look like he was in some sort of executive boardroom, lots of tasteful Chomsky's behind him. Look like he was in a conference room at a high end law firm I couldn't tell what Zuckerberg was sitting in front of it looked like closed vertical blinds almost like I don't know some sort of like a bunker like if you're battening down your house for a Hurricane Tim, Cook was in front of some sort of tasteful plant trough though he was clearly working off an ipad pro. Let's start off with what the Fab four had to say in their opening statements. Amazon's Jeff bezos underscored Amazon's job creation, its investments in social causes and its role in supporting small and medium-sized businesses. And made the case that Hey Amazon is just a tiny competitor in a huge global market quote. The global retail market we compete in is strikingly large and extraordinarily competitive Amazon accounts for less than one percent of the thousand five, trillion dollar global retail market and less than four percent of retail in the US unlike industries that are winner take all there's room in retail for many winners for example. More than eighty retailers in the US. Alone earn over one billion dollars in annual revenue like any retailer we know that the success of our store depends entirely on customer satisfaction with their experience in our store every day Amazon competes against large established players like target Costco Kroger and of course, Walmart a company more than twice Amazon size, and while we have always focused on producing a great customer experience. For retail sales done primarily online sales initiated online are now in even larger Growth Area for other stores Walmart's online sales grew seventy four percent in the first quarter and customers are increasingly flocking disservices invented by other stores. Amazon still can't match at the scale of other large companies like curbside pickup and in store returns and quote alphabets. Soon, Darpa, Chai, said that Google also operates in a highly competitive. Market and that it's free products benefit the average American quote. A competitive digital ad marketplace gives publishers, advertisers, and therefore consumers an enormous amount of choice pichai stated, for example, competition and ads from twitter instagram comcast and others has helped lower online advertising costs by forty percent over the last ten years with these savings pass down to consumers through lower prices in areas like travel and real estate Google faces strong. For search queries for many businesses that are experts in those areas. Today's competitive landscape looks nothing like I. Did five years ago let alone twenty one years ago when Google launched its first product Google search people have more ways to search for information than ever before and quote. Tim Cook of Apple said that the APP store has opened the gate wider for software developers. Also, apple doesn't have dominant market share quote as much as we believe, the iphone provides the best user experience. We know it is far from the only choice available to consumers Cook said after beginning with five hundred APPs today the APP store hosts more than one point seven, million, only sixty of which are apple software. Clearly, if apple is a gatekeeper, what we have done is open the gate wider we want to get every APP we can on the store, not keep them off and quote. And facebook's mark. Zuckerberg said well, but he said a thousand times before that facebook knows it has more work to do on things like fighting misinformation and that you know companies aren't bad simply because they're big. And he took pains to point out that facebook is an American success story quote although people around the world use our products. FACEBOOK is a proudly American company. He said, we believe in Values Democracy Competition Inclusion and free expression that the American economy was built on many other tech companies share these values, but there's no guarantee our values will win out for example China. Is Building its own version of the Internet focused on very different ideas and they are exporting their vision to other countries as Congress and other stakeholders. Consider how antitrust laws support competition in the US. I believe it's important to maintain the core values of openness and fairness that have made America's digital economy, a force for empowerment and opportunity here and around the world and quote. In his opening remarks, the chairman of the Committee David. Sy-. Selena Rhode. Island. Laid out three areas of inquiry that the was scheduled to delve into at least in questioning from the Democratic Congress folk more on that in A. Quitting CNBC, each platform allegedly serves as a quote bottleneck for a key channel of distribution and quote the platforms allegedly used their control over digital infrastructure to Sir Vail other companies, their growth business activity, and whether they might pose a competitive threat and use that information to maintain their own power and third the platforms allegedly abused their control over current technologies to extend their power through tactics like self referencing their own products. Quote. Prior to the cove nineteen pandemic, these corporations already stood out as titans in our economy. Silly said in the wake of Covid nineteen however, they are likely to emerge stronger and more powerful than ever before, and he concluded by saying quote, our founders would not bow before a king nor should we bow before the emperor's of the online economy and quote? But as I say, while this was labelled as an anticompetitive antitrust inquiry, it seems like the Republican Congress folk were primarily interested in probing alleged bias against conservative users. In fact, Jim Jordan. One of the ranking Republican representatives spent most of his opening remarks railing against. which if that continues would basically be exactly what all of the CEOS in the talking head boxes would be hoping for right lots of distraction and no real spotlight on them. In fact, a lot of the most heated questions directed at a company that's not even present. We'll see if that continues but I have to say straight off Chairman Sicily and was very specific targeted sharp questions. He kept interrupting folks when they started to stray into doublespeak and the very nature of the questions from him and others at least so far. This wasn't like previous congressional hearings we've covered where the congress folk didn't seem to even understand the businesses they were investigating, and maybe that was because I don't know if you saw the woman sitting very prominently very obviously behind Mr. Cecil lean. Let me let the Washington Post fill you in on who that was quote as a twenty eight year old law student Lena Con penned a twenty four thousand word article for Yale Law Journal titled Amazon's antitrust. Paradox. The article described how US antitrust law isn't equipped to deal with tech giants such as Amazon. Even as the company has made itself as essential to commerce in the twenty first century in the way that railroads and telephone systems had in the previous century con now works as counsel for the antitrust subcommittee she has worked with Sylvain to develop his case against the tech giants including Amazon and quote. As I said, the questioning is continuing as I speak these words in fact I just heard that they came back from their recess. The whole thing did kick off hour late only getting started at one PM, eastern? So I don't think it'll be done before for five PM at least. So again, I'll put together a summary of all of the juicy exchanges happening now for tomorrow.
Tech Giants Gird for Tough Hearing in House Antitrust Probe
"Of the minds on Capitol Hill today. Big Tech testifies to lawmakers as the heads of Facebook, Apple Google And Amazon will be grilled on antitrust concerns. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's soon DARPA Chai Apple's Tim Cook and making his first appearance before Congress Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos will all appear virtually before the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust as the subcommittee has been conducting a year long investigation of big tax market dominance. A central issue for lawmakers, as they reviewed these massive companies is whether existing competition policies and century old antitrust laws are adequate for overseeing today's tech giants.
Big Tech CEOs testify before House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee
"To lawmakers as the heads of Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon will be grilled on antitrust concerns. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's soon DARPA Chai Apple's Tim Cook and making his first appearance before Congress Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos will all appear virtually before the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust. As the subcommittee has been conducting a year long investigation of big tax market dominance. A central issue for lawmakers as they reviewed these massive companies is whether existing competition policies and century old antitrust laws are adequate for overseeing today's tech giants. Mark Malard
Jeff Bezos' First Time: Amazon CEO Faces Testimony Before Congress
"A focus on Capitol Hill, The CEOs of Amazon, Facebook alphabet and Apple face a hearing on antitrust issues. Today, Sarah Friar covers the tech industry for Bloomberg. It's going to be quite historic because these men had never testified together in just days case. He's never testified at all. This will be his first time on the stand, so it is going to be quite noteworthy. Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, son DARPA Shy and Tim Cook a run companies with the combined value of nearly $5 trillion. They'll face questions about privacy breaches, election misinformation, and the spread of racist and violent content will bring it all to you Live on Bloomberg radio and television at noon Wall Street Time. Also in
Dan Guido of Trail of Bits - The Evolution of Smart Contract Security
"So I've been doing security stuff for the better part of my life started probably when I was about thirteen fourteen, breaking into my school computers, like when does as when does. Luckily escaped being severely punished for that but I ended up going to college for concentration program and cybersecurity. It was called politicking university when I went there, but now the Nyu School of Engineering and they have one of these NSA center of excellence programs that teach kids a formalized education in Cybersecurity I think the people that are a little bit younger than me have a lot more formalized education and people that are a little bit older than me, don't they learned? Learned from their peers, learned and kind of like a master apprentice kind of set up, so I'm right on the cusp of that, so I have a formal background in computer, science and computer security, and this is the only field that I've ever been interested in working in, so I've worked at the Fed reserve doing incident response, helping prevent people hacking into the currency reserve the United States. I've been a consultant at Isaac Partners now NC group I saw that Isaac. Isaac partners before they were acquired help start their office in the on the East Coast worked with dozens of technology companies across the globe, but I was pretty frustrated that it seemed like an unending treadmill that you kind of go back to clients year after year, and there's always the same bugs, and they don't really internalize the information that you give them. I thought that there was some improvement that we could make, and I wanted to make fundamental improvements to the. The whole field so I found a trail with two friends of mine back in twenty twelve to fundamentally advance the science of computer, science and computer security I think by and large succeeded at doing that very small ways. The company started as a Darpa contractor. We worked on for your long research programs in Automated Program Analysis and Advanced Cryptography, and then from there we've branched out to help provide those advances to commercial firms and now to blockchain firms, so that's. I guess the medium length overview of where I came from and what we're doing now. Tell us about how you got interested in blockchain as a cryptographic field. Because basically found a trade of bits and two thousand twelve, and obviously, then it was pretty new, so what exactly spoke to you about it? A couple of things I think it was really driven by employee interest there about two or three people in the company that were just really enamored with blockchain technology, because it was a Greenfield, not necessarily because it was anything that you could do with blockchain, but because the field was in its infancy, it was a chance to start over it was there were no security tools. There was no security knowledge. People were building their own programming languages building their own compilers. The execution environment looked a little bit different, so there was this huge gap of knowledge that we could rush into fill and create things that were. From the first step back about three to four years ago, we had a couple people dabbling in that area of technology, and what we contributed was a symbolic verifier. That was our very first thing. We didn't raise our hands and say hey. We'll audit your code for you. We're engineers, so we set up a little unit of people that wrote Symbolic Capable A. A theory in virtual machine, a tool that we have called manticore, and then once we were able to do that. We realized that Hey, this is actually kind of valuable and people would love to work with us to improve their own security, so because we'd already mastered the field through that activity that research activity. That's how we started offering services for
Hypersonics: Where the Technology is and Where it is Going
"We're here to talk about hypersonic technologies, and you know the really changing the world for military competition among the world's nations to create weapons so fast and maneuverable. They're very hard to shoot down to innovations that could enable rapid civilian travel from New York to Hong Kong or multi-stage access to space. These hypersonic pursuits are really pushing the boundaries. Of National Budgets and the laws of physics. Wanted to turn to Graham, I He really helped. Conceive of a grand package of stories. We have on hypersonic weapons and hypersonic technologies and I wondered if you could give us a broad overview and a snapshot of these developments. For our listeners. Yes, so the mantra of hype has always been that. Hypersonic is the future and always will be well the news as that. this is the future or getting close to the future we after decades and decades of on and off development we, we have several hypersonic weapons programs that are that are getting close to. That are either in the early stages of operation. If they're in Russia or China, or the US are getting close to operation so. So, we thought it was a good time to sort of bring our readers up to speed. Both on the on those weapons systems that are that are in those final stages of development early stages of deployment. the evolving. Field of how do we counter these weapons? Because as you say, there are very very difficult to to intercept. And also, to really make clear to people that we are just at the beginning, even after all these decades we are still just at the beginning of this journey, and there are an awful lot of technical challenges that still lie ahead for hypersonic spirit, really to to realize its potential and become more than just a a niche capability more than just you know, in essence, very limited capability, but something that is much more flexible incapable of our time, and as you say, could be used in in applications well beyond the initial military applications. So this was an attempt to sort of. Take a step back and take a look at where we got to, but where we also still have to go. Steve I wanted to turn to you next to. You really delved into our. The United States is. Hyper Sonics Offensive and defensive weapons capabilities. It seems like the US is is. In a transition phase from Technological Development to really winnowing that field down to technologies that might be producible. Can you talk about some of? The the most viable programs that are underway. The army has one. Why don't you start? Challenge where to start right I mean there's three different tracks of hypersonic. Weapons there's four different operational prototypes at least three different demonstrators. Those are just the ones we know of when we talked to contractors like Lockheed and Raytheon. They say they're also working on a couple of classified programs that we're not totally sure what what they are. Let me start in kind of picking up on where Graham was You know saying we're here, we're we're in the age of Hyper Sonics. And really that began on a specific day. It was Mayford twenty seventeen. That was when the secretary of the Air Force at the time. Lisa Diso signed the authorization. For the for the requirement of the airlines, rapid response weapon and that was A. That is a historic moment in the era of hypersonic. That was the first time military service stood up and said we are going to. Weaponize this technology. This thing that we've been working on and you know playing with experimenting with for decades we're GONNA make it a weapon now. Obviously, they were doing that because Russia and China already beat them to the punch. In in that case, but The for US hypersonic technology. It was an historic moment So you know And, that was the air force doing it the army navy weren't that far behind after completing a fleet experiment. One of the Common Hypersonic Glide Body in November of two thousand, seventeen the army and navy made the commitment to jump in to hypersonic weapons programs as well. So where we are today, so it's three years on. A. we you know we're starting to just like every other weapons development program in Hightech. You know endeavor from the Pentagon. There are some issues right? Arrow is probably about a year behind schedule. It's risk reduction effort. Darpa working on. The tactical boost glide program. It's also a year behind schedule The overall program is thirty nine thirty nine percent over budget going to the Government Accountability Office. They've had to cancel one program. The Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon, which was going to use the same common hypersonic right buddy that would be the army and the navy versions of the same missile. They canceled that diverted the funding to cover the offset in Arrow. And the meantime they've also launched a follow onto a scrim jet powered missile demonstrator. So, there's been a lot of different moving
"darpa" Discussed on Main Engine Cut Off
"Hello and welcome to main engine cutoff. I'm Anthony Colangelo WanNa talk today about a Darpa program that has been Quite the saga over the years. This is the robotic servicing of geosynchronous satellites program R. S. For Short this has had a tumultuous past few years. Sorta roll the clock back and give you the full context. This is a program that was designed to obviously by its name. Demonstrate Robotic servicing on satellite specifically charged targeting geosynchronous here but it was maybe a little more expensive than that in general so the the basics of it was that. Darpa was looking for a partner to build the spacecraft bus which would host developed by Darpa and I believe it was the US Naval Laboratory. That we're working on the robotics platforms and self. It would be two different robotic arms a couple of tools at the end of each. And ideally I think that the mission was to change out different parts on satellite whether solar panels batteries. I'm not sure they ever determined exactly what they'd be changing out. But it was a demonstration mission. That could accomplish a series of tasks and they were going to host it. On a commercial payload a commercial provided bus. I should say not a payload and the agency itself would provide the launch. And the robotics payload and then the satellite operator would host them on their on their satellite bus. They would get them to where they need to be carry out the mission successfully and then and this was the critical part after the Darpa demonstration was done. These satellite would be turned over to that satellite producer to be commercialized from there. So they could offer satellite servicing Partnerships or are Or Services I guess would be not really partnerships to other satellites in the area that turned out to be a point of contention and led to a lawsuit so Darpa awarded this contract to SSL space systems the row. They are a division of Maxwell Technologies. Now sorry for all the names here just trying to get you up to speed on on how all this worked so as a one that initial contract to host the RS GS Payload Northrop Grumman. Who at the time was orderly to Cain nother Northrop Grumman? They sued over this award because they said that Darpa was funding. Another company in in Something that is redundant to what they were already working on. And there was some clause in the law that said the government should not directly compete with commercial entities. That are trying to do the same thing. So they sued over that saying that The turning of this satellite from a Darpa demonstration into a commercially available option was directly competing with what they were working on at the time it was mission extension vehicles and mission robotic vehicles that lawsuit eventually got thrown out. There was basically the trio of things that were being argued over was north of gremlins mission. Extension Vehicles Darpa and Sol's our SDS program. And then there is another program at NASA called Restore L. If you remember about two years ago I went down to NASA Goddard and talked with the team working on restoring L. That is a program that NASA is working on to refuel. Land Sat Satellite. So this was the kind of landscape that everyone was arguing about. Being redundant and competing with commercial partners and look at NASA is already doing this kind of thing eventually that all got tossed out and SSL was pushing on the program with Darpa north of Grummin continued work on their mission. Extension VEHICLE FLASH FORWARD. A couple of years that was in the late two thousand seventeen timeframe early twenty nineteen. Sol cancelled their agreement with Darpa. Because at the time Max are was going through hell to put it honestly. They had a digital globe. Satellite worldview four that failed just after launching and was a huge insurance hit. It was like you know hundreds of millions of dollars that they lost from world. War worldview four dying so early on orbit they also had at the time. The geostationary satellite market was really down. There weren't a lot of orders. So they had a bunch of layoffs that were selling properties. They were kind of in a tailspin for a little bit of time. Their stock price was going. I think dropped zero off the end of their stock price. They were having a hell of a time so early. Twenty nineteen. They cancelled this contract and they said that they were not able to find an economically viable path to support our SDS within the timeframe that they needed considering their financial situation. And because this was a public private partnership in that way of hosting a Darpa payload and eventually becoming a commercial platform this was couched in a private or public private partnership in which the company was was supposed to be able to find a commercial offering for the satellite. After that was part of the deal at Darpa would be providing some funding they would provide a launch but that the company would be investing heavily in this as well because of that eventual payoff. But for Max. Are you know they were looking at a short term problem and this was a long term payoff? It was going to be another two or three years before this got up on orbit. Did it's demonstration and then would be able to start making money for them and at the time that would just wasn't going to work so they terminated the agreement from there. We follow two different tracks for this saga Darpa then had to go through the political ramifications of that and figure out if they were going to have money to reward this program to some other provider figure out if that was even in the cards for them figure out. If they can get the additional money needed through the acquisitions process and Northrop Grumman. All along was continuing to work on their mission extension vehicles. Obviously we know now that the mission extension vehicles have worked out just a couple of weeks back mission extension vehicle one docked with Intel Sat. Ninety one if you have not seen the photos from this you've got to check them out. They are pretty spectacular. Black and white. But you've got this view of Intel sad ninety one with the whole earth in the background and it's just beautiful beautiful imagery from this but they successfully docked with Intelsat nine. Oh One they had quite a campaign of rendezvous with this coming in a couple of different times eventually did dock with Intelsat nine and they are now They've taken over You know the propulsion in pointing services on that satellite so that is the scope of mission extension vehicle as its name implies. It extends the mission of a satellite. It does so by taking over propulsion attitude control everything that is essentially needed except for the payloads on the satellite itself. That are transmitting broadcasting back down to Earth or whatever. Their job is It's taking over all of the other stuff. Maybe the satellite has run out of fuel. Maybe it has some other issue that it can't maintain its Pointing on its own and this takes over for it. So at this point emmy one is Going to complete a five year mission within zell sat nine to one that is the initial contract for this mission extension vehicle. It's bringing it down from. Its GRAVEYARD ORBIT. That is three hundred kilometers above geostationary orbit. It'll bring it back down into juice stationary orbit and begin services. Once again after that five years is up. The mission extension vehicle should have about ten years of life span left so it can go off and service other satellites in geostationary orbit and that's the business model here. You're you're letting somebody extend their useful time of that payload on orbit for a couple of years without paying for a huge launch so without a massive investment you're extending the life of that huge asset that you already have up in space and eventually over you know that fifteen year lifespan of mission extension vehicle north of Grummin expects to make significant profit. They can launch a mission extension vehicles as secondary payloads heading up to geostationary transfer orbit then geostationary orbit and do this fifteen years of service and make a good amount of money If you run the numbers it it does turn out to be. You know millions of dollars of profit if you obviously don't know the exact prices of everything that's involved here but it's not hard to really do some math to show that this does make some millions of dollars over that lifespan. Now from here mission extension vehicle to is already on its way. It's not launched yet but it's on its way to launch. Intelsat again has an agreement to be the first customer mission extension vehicle to so mission extension vehicle line seems to be quite lucrative for Northrop Grumman and they do have plans to push beyond simple life extension to something called the mission robotic vehicle and that is the second component of this satellite servicing market for North. From and the difference. Here is that the mission robotic vehicle will be launched. It has a couple of robotic arms and would also has on board is something they called mission extension pots so instead of a full second satellite that goes on and attach is typically to the engine of these Ju- stationary satellites. These would be much smaller. Pods that the robotic vehicle would go up and attached to the satellite itself The most the most recent visualization. I've seen shows it attaching to the engine. The Same Way. This mission extension vehicle does where it clamps on to the engine on the back of the satellite and these pods are much smaller. So the idea is one robotic vehicle can carry many different pods. That would go up. They would provide. I would assume much shorter service life spans for these vehicles but just because it can't fit as much fuel inside but if each pod can offer three to five years of extension services and each robotic vehicle carry at least three probably up to five or six pods on a mission. You can see that you are able to offer a lot more mission extension services to a lot more satellites in a much shorter time span so instead of banking on five or ten years of time. Line before you're turning profit with a mission extension vehicle that could be done and crunched into five years with just as much Just as many agreements signed with these different satellites norther Grummin. Seems like they are really going in on this mission extension services idea as lucrative business model and I like the idea of mission extension pods because specifically because of that timeline crunch. Who knows where the industry's going to be at five? Ten fifteen years from now especially considering things that are gonNA come online new launch vehicles reusable upper stages hopefully space tugs you. Name it. There's going to be a lot of shifts in the industry. So if you're able to identify mission extension services as a valuable business for the current ageing generation of satellites in. Jiu Stationary orbit mission. Extension pods can let you offer those services to as many as possible in the next five ten years and really focus that revenue generation on a need. That is present right now and then. You're building up all this experience of these different vehicles different robotic operations. You're pushing it every single time. You're launching when it's when you get five or ten years out and things have significantly changed. Hopefully you've got enough of a base built up of customers and experience and technology that you can respond to where the market is at that time. So that's where north of Bremen was doing and that's kind of where they stand.
US Air Force starts effort to buy a 'flying car'
"Air Force general David that tool and now dean of the Mitchell institute for aerospace studies frequent guest good morning general good to have you Hey good morning here are you today great I want to ask you about preparedness for the pandemic but first I just that I read this and I want to ask you about it there's a headline over the military times U. S. Air Force starts effort to buy a flying car it's a Jetsons kind of story they're looking for something called agility prime what do you know about this general and and are we going to see flying cars anytime soon well he was in effort to basically initiate a variety of efforts I had to look at how we might be able to supplement the capabilities that are provided by the V. twenty two which is the vertical lift aircraft in intense stimulate industry to look at different and new technologies to bring those kinds of capabilities where you can take off and small tiny areas and not have to rely on thousand foot multiple thousand foot runway so we'll see what how is that how it turns out but again it's a stimulus or not he has to get a new ideas out there and to get something concrete they can provide the kind of vertical lift capability in small spaces and do it let's say within a year that you know general once you get the vertical left the biggest hit on the strategic triad that is part of the Air Force is that you need runways and runways can be targeted once you've got a vertical lift and develop the technology to the point like the osprey then all of the strategic deterrent the airforce carries can be deployed anywhere in the world right well that's true although you I would say we haven't seen the end of the runway it's important to understand that they're over eighteen holes and runaways with over six thousand feet a paid service around the world so yeah you're you can't move but guess what there are a lot of them but your point is very valid one in that it would significantly con complicate any adversary he we're attacking six bases so if it is one of the technologies we need to continue to explore did expand the capabilities of the U. S. Air Force now couple questions that are there about politics and defense general debt to DARPA came up in the debate the Democrats had on Tuesday night president binder right president Biden attempted to say he ran dark but I thought are you going up here could you tell people what DARPA is this they have an idea what what the Democrats are talking about here yeah sure that darkness is an acronym that stands for defense advanced research projects agency it is a an arm of the department of defense in its focus is to look at no near term technologies but future technologies into see how they might be able to bring or research new and innovative ideas and then transition them to reality to provide it bans capability as rapidly as soon as possible some of the capabilities that his a ball out of their defense advanced research projects agency in the past are things like the internet you know contrary to al gore's statement that he invented the internet he didn't the defense advanced research projects agency did back in the late eighties so he that's just one example that I think everyone would be
"darpa" Discussed on TechStuff
"So starting in one thousand nine hundred three the plan was that by nineteen ninety three. We're going to have a computer that can think and an experienced like a human can whiles IRS. So it was pretty obvious by the late eighties. That this was not going to happen. They were not. Going to hit that goal. And in retrospect, we would probably call this the result of hubris, the human brain is far more complicated. And technology is far more limited than we gave either credit for back in nineteen Ninety-three. Nevertheless, the defense advanced research projects agency or DARPA and the department of defense, which is the department that oversees DARPA poured about a billion dollars into funding various programs throughout the United States in an effort to achieve this goal. And while we did not get a computer that thinks like a person out of this whole process. Many influential computer scientists and research projects were able to advance our capabilities and understanding through their work which got funding from this project. So we didn't get what the project was aimed to produce. But we did benefit from it. Some. Of that work would become really important for the next big DARPA initiative that I'm going to cover and that is the grand challenge. The history of the grand challenge dates back to two thousand one at that time the United States Congress had its own challenge for the various branches of the US military, the US. Congress said we want you to develop the technology necessary to allow one third of all military ground combat vehicles to be uncrowned by two thousand fifteen in other words to have autonomous ground combat vehicles by twenty fifteen one third of all of them. The purpose obviously was to keep soldiers out of harm's way as much as possible that if you can have these ground combat vehicles operate autonomously than if one gets destroyed that's a huge amount of money gun down the drain. But no one dies at least, no one on your side dies achieving this. Goal would also be super difficult to do technology. Just wasn't where would need to be by itself. The defense contractors that DARPA would work with on these sort of solutions weren't making the progress necessary in order to meet that two thousand fifteen goal and DARPA recognized this early on they said. This is just not going to happen. So in the final report for the two thousand four grand challenge, which was the first of the three grand challenges around autonomous cars, the logic that the agency laid out to justify this challenge was this while there have been a number of significant technical breakthroughs leading to robust unmanned air vehicles. That US forces us today progress in unmanned autonomous ground vehicle technology has not occurred at a similar rate vehicle operations in a ground environment are a much more difficult challenge due to terrain man-made obstacles and weather. That's just scratching the surface. They actually were pretty, you know, generous in that regard. Because as it turns out, there are a lot of other factors that make this a really difficult problem. And I think one other thing. Quick tangent. That I think is important here is DARPA pointing out. Yes, we came up with autonomous systems for aircraft ages ago. We have lots of them we have unmanned drones that we can fly. But we haven't really done that with cars. I think that's also a good reminder that technology does not all progress at the same accelerated rate, we have Moore's law, which is kind of conditioned us to think about our technology advancing rapidly over the course of every two years, but that doesn't apply to every technology. It applies specifically these days to computational power than originally only dealt with the number of transistors, you could fit on a square inch of silicon wafer. So. This is good to remember because I think a lot of Futurists just kind of apply Moore's law to all technologies and just assume that everything is accelerated at that same or everything is moving at that. Same accelerated rate back to autonomous cars Jose, Negra n- who worked at DARPA at the time of the grand challenges went to the director of DARPA with an idea. And he said there are a lot of people out there who could potentially contribute to the advancement of technology. We're going to need for autonomous cars, but we normally wouldn't work with them because they're independent innovators. They work with smaller groups, they aren't part of defense contractor companies..
"darpa" Discussed on This Week In Google
"Alphabet owns shaft, here's the DARPA grand challenge. Eight tasks and walking all of this done by this robot. I guess though, the research, I mean, I hope it's not, you know, dead. I mean, I hope that it. Well, maybe I do I don't know. See this is I'm to say, I'm gonna say this is Ted. Yes. It is. Because every time you here's what he's that's creepy. It's a machine is a machine, and you there is a reason you want Peter robots because as in this environment, they're designed for humans designed for bipedal navigation. And so if a robots coming into rescue people they need to be able to operate in an environment designed for people like go upstairs and open tours and all of that stuff and fire weapon. Hey, knock it off disarm disarm weapon. The good news. Hey, here's I'll put a happy gloss on that one would hope that if it's a robot firing a weapon it's fire weapon at another robot. Okay can draw better circles than I can't punch to home the door. It's a terrible circle. It's not like it can turn wrenches. This is the DARPA grand challenge. So they designed these challenges for robots, and this is the shaft robot here it's getting a hose so that signed for a human, but it's able to. And connected. Can it make a nice mutton lettuce and tomato sandwich inevitably? If you could do the one you can do the other. So she was a robot. There was a story about a robot a company that got a lot of investment to make to have robots make pizza cut millions of dollars. I forgot that. Put the pizza was terrible. Doesn't matter robot made it. You know, what a human can make terrible pizza to string not not only the the realm of the robot..
"darpa" Discussed on TechStuff
"To help build out the system, and they would subcontract with other companies to build all these simulators. And they weren't just aircraft simulators, they built tank, simulators and other stuff too. And they networked them all together the advantages of the simulators over real world training were numerous real world combat training is obviously very dangerous for some scenarios suggest. Let's say you want to operate your aircraft. But you also. So want to jam the sensors on that aircraft only is that very dangerous because you're taking away some of the information that the pilots are relying upon it's also potentially problematic because depending on where you're flying. These these training missions using that jamming technology can affect other stuff like commercial flights or maybe the the airspace of allies or maybe people who aren't your allies. It could be really really touchy. But if you simulate it, you can do pretty much scenario that the computer is capable of running. So also because the systems were networked in theory. You could have people in different parts of the world all training together. You didn't have to get them all in the same place at the same time, though, you would have to figure out something about lagging latency for these systems sim net in a way was a precursor to online games that millions of gamers play these days like MMORPG's, they can kind of trace. What necessarily trace their history back, but some net was definitely a precursor to that kind of stuff. There are many more technologies. The DARPA helped fund in the nineteen seventies were XM or lasers. These were used in communications platforms between aircraft and submerged submarines they needed to develop special lasers in the shortwave range of lasers the longer. Wavelengths? Didn't have good penetration in the water. So you couldn't really use them to communicate with a submarine. But there was this need to communicate with submarines because at that point really the only way as submarine communicate with the surface is if the submarine itself surfaced, and obviously that puts the submarine and vulnerable position being able to use these shortwave lasers and have them penetrate. The water reached the submarine and have the submarine be able to respond opened up communication in ways that weren't possible before DARPA also contributed some of the components for the Hubble space telescope. Nope. The agency would design and help build two and Tanna booms for the satellite telescope in the late nineteen seventies and early nineteen eighties. Darby pioneered the development of a special graphite and aluminum material though, it allow the booms to not just conduct radio frequencies, but also double as structural supports. So these structural supports. It made made the overall telescope lighter the material was lighter. It removes some of the need for some extra infrastructure. And again, if you make your payload lighter to send off into space you bring the price down. So wait is money. So it was a cost saving feature. It took the better part of a decade for DARPA to recover in the wake of the Vietnam war. The agency changed a lot in the nineteen seventies. And we're going to leave off for now. We're going to say goodbye DARPA for the time being but I will come back to revisit the agency in the projects at funded over. Over the following decades and future episodes. So we'll talk about things like Star Wars and Thomas cars and spying on world of warcraft players and more because DARPA played a role in all of that kind of stuff. It's a fascinating story, and again because of the work that DARPA has helped fund we have access to some pretty incredible technologies that you know, rolled out a few years later based on that early work. So it's definitely benefited us in many many ways they agency has also created stuff that's been at best. Controversial. And at worst incredibly incredibly harmful like Agent, Orange is the one point too easily as being a truly terrible thing. So you take the good you take the bad. You take them both in there. You have DARPA. I guess we will revisit this in the future. But in the meantime, if you. Guys, have any suggestions for topics. You would like me to cover on tech stuff. Some sort of technology accompany person in tech, whatever.
"darpa" Discussed on TechStuff
"Darpa would move on to pursue a new project called assault breaker, which had the goal of bringing together many different disparate technologies in an effort to make them work together a system of systems, this idea of we have all these pieces out there, and they're all effective, but it would be better if we could actually make a cohesive approach to this. So the goal was to create a means in which military commanders would have an enormous amount. Of information at their disposal and the capability of launching an attack on target. Even if that target were well behind enemy lines. This would require bringing together all of these different technologies that DARPA had played a part in making a reality Soviet Union spies learned about this program assault breaker, and they reported back to their superiors in Moscow and eventually military personnel in the Soviet Union wrote up a report and published it in a journal called military thought, it's actually a classified journal only a few high-ranking officials really had access to it. Well, high-ranking Soviet officials and a few US spies because as we know everyone is spying on everyone else all the time. Always. So when US officials learned that the Soviet government was worried that the US was building up a program that would give America this incredible advantage in both gathering intelligence and acting upon it spirit stirred to run high in the US because if you're in. Me is scared. That's good news for you. I guess one cool project that started independently from DARPA was one that would eventually be called sim net. So there was an air force pilot named Jack Thorpe who was thinking about the possibility of networked flight, simulators for the purposes of training pilots, you know, combat training without actually having to go up in a real jet, and he had experienced this on a small scale. This was not something he just came up with on his own. He had already had sort of this experience in a system that was at the flying training division of Williams air force base. And that system would allow to pilots to simulate flying emission together, the simulator was complete with a hydraulic motion systems. So it move you as you're piloting the simulated aircraft. But again, it was just a pair of these simulators that worked together Thorpe wondered if perhaps it will be possible to build out a much larger system with multiple. Simulators all connected to each other to allow for more complex training THORP wrote up a paper, titled future views aircrew training, nineteen eighty through two thousand this was in nineteen seventy eight when he wrote this and he pitched his ideas to top brass, but they didn't take Jerry seriously to be fair to them the tack that Thorpe was proposing was incredibly sophisticated for the time and also not many people really knew that much about the progress that Arpanet had been making a networking different computer systems together. So no one was really sure how feasible this was Thorpe would go on doing his career. And then he would go to the naval war college to further his education. And after getting that he was assigned sort of on loan by the air force to DARPA while he was at DARPA his boss asked them. Hey gunny. Interesting ideas, you know, beyond what you're working on. So Thorpe shared his vision of these network. Leaders and his boss loved this idea and told Thorpe that you should tell this to Larry Lynn who was then the director of DARPA Larry Len like the a lot too. So yes, Thorpe how much money do you think it would cost to do this project and Thorpe said seventeen million dollars and Lind said okeydokey? So the program began and it became known as simulator networking or sim net. Darpa would contract with delta graphics, inC, percep- Tron ICs Inc and BBN Inc..
"darpa" Discussed on TechStuff
"Design was nicknamed the hopeless diamond the sketch was of an aircraft that vaguely resembled the hope diamond and had lots of facets odd angles. No, one was really sure if it would be able to fly the weird angles were part of the stealth technology. It was all an effort to redirect those incoming radar signals. So that they would not return to the listening stations. They would bounce off into some other directions kind of like using a mirror to direct a Ray of light. And you just tilt the mirror different direction. And the like goes a different way by redirecting the radar signals. It would seem to the radar station that there was nothing in that region of the sky that was the whole idea much of the work on the cell technology took place on the most famous secret base of all time, which of course is area. Fifty. Fifty one or the groom lake facility. I've talked about this base numerous times on this podcast as well. The air force would take over the program in the late nineteen seventies and conduct flight tests, all over the two. Nope. Test range, which was seventy miles north west of area. Fifty one some people would just call that area fifty two and another big project was in updating the old transit navigation system was a satellite based navigation system that Arpaio had been involved with in the early sixties. This effort was to replace that with a more robust satellite system in nineteen Seventy-three as America was withdrawing from Vietnam. The Pentagon ordered a joint program for a single navigation system that all the branches of the military would be able to use. Because at this point, these various military branches had all been working on their own systems, which were not compatible with one another and eventually the government. Said this doesn't make sense we should have a more unified approach. So this new program was called Navistar and DARPA helped fund the development of this program, which by nineteen Eighty-nine was finally ready for full deployment, and it consisted of twenty four satellites with Tomic clocks, which was necessary for synchronization, and they were launched into orbit to give global navigation coverage. This information could be used not just to navigate people around the world. But also for guided weapons systems as part of the technology designers included what they called an offset feature. It was it was known as selective availability. And it meant that. If you didn't have the right kind of receiver to descrambler this information and get a readout. You would actually get a result that would be off by several hundred feet which would limit the chances of someone unauthorized making use of the system, and it would also keep the GPS network impractical for. Commercial use that is until President Bill Clinton would end the era of selective availability and allow civilian systems to access information with essentially the same precision as military systems, and at that point GPS receivers were accurate enough to be used for things like navigation and cars because before the would be you know, you would have like a precision of down to around a few hundred feet. That's not very useful. When you're trying to look for a turn anyway during Vietnam DARPA had funded a few drone programs as well. These were very primitive drones compared to what we have today. But it was the beginning of serious work in unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance and for weaponization they were code named prairie and Calera both were remotely piloted vehicles or RPG's and both use lawnmower Motors and could carry a payload of about twenty eight pounds or twelve point seven kilograms these would serve as prototypes for. For work in the field, which DARPA would end up handing over to the armed forces in nineteen seventy seven DARPA would fund another project for a an unmanned aerial vehicle called amber that was supposed to be a long endurance UAV that would get support from the navy as the project was proving promising but in the late nineteen eighty s Congress would create a new joint program office to continue research and development for unmanned aerial vehicles and DARPA was effectively removed from that process..
"darpa" Discussed on TechStuff
"But also about these revelations of how the US public had been deceived. Over the years, how the government had been purposefully misleading the US population that is, you know, at least supposed to be represented by the government. And so it bread. This. This distrust in the government saying you have been doing all the secrets. Stuff telling us. It's one thing when it's really another the antiwar sentiment. Put a lot of pressure on all parties involved. Eventually it led to Arp director who was a doctor Steve Jay, Lucas, the seventh director of Arp at that point to sever the ties with Jason's Arpaio is seen as the RND tip on the point of the military industrial complex spear. And since the efforts in Vietnam didn't prevent the North Vietnamese forces from taking Saigon many were beginning to question. The usefulness of such an agency in the first place the experience of Vietnam had an enormous effect on the American psyche. The majority of Americans felt the war was unethical and political mistake, and that led to the deaths of thousands of Americans not to mention millions of others and it ton Americans that the use of force and superior technology would not necessarily win out over philosophies an ideology, it wasn't realistic to say because. We are technologically superior were definitely going to win. Now. All of this is to say that it would make the post Vietnam war era for DARPA really challenging apart from the name change, which was again to indicate that from this point forward. The agency was only going to pursue projects that met a specific military need all projects related to the Vietnam war were to stop project. Agile was called an enormous failure that all the attempts to bring research and technology to stop insurgents had been ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst several previous Arpad directors who oversaw project agile throughout the years would admit that their efforts were misguided and ineffective DARPA established a.
"darpa" Discussed on TechStuff
"Hey there and welcome to tech stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland. I'm executive producer love all things tech. And this is our fourth episode about DARPA. And after this episode, I will switch to some other topics for a while. But Dr bas history is incredibly complicated, and it's intertwined with some of the most important technologies we interact with today. So we will revisit this topic in the future. We'll come back and continue the story of DARPA, but I did not want to turn tech stuff into DARPA stuff. So after this one I figure we'll move onto something else. And maybe in a few weeks. We'll pick up where we left off today in our last episode, we covered a lot more of the technology that was developed as part of the efforts in the Vietnam war, and I guess now it's a good time to remind everyone that DARPA which back in the sixties was known by its original name Arba was not an are in defense itself. Not truly. It was more of an agency that would award contracts to other organizations such as think tanks, universities defense, contractors and stuff like that Arpaio slash DARPA would fund the work, and they would also set the expectations the guidelines. You know, why was that they were hoping to get out of it? But the actual science and development was going on throughout the United States and all these different facilities. And these projects were frequently top top top secret. Meaning the people who worked on them would keep it quiet even from their co workers. So only people at the top of DARPA really tended to know all about the bits and pieces and sometimes even the director wasn't fully aware of everything that was going on. That's how classified some of these projects were in nineteen sixty-nine while several Arba research projects were all tied up in the Vietnam war, a group of computer networking specialists would initiate the original Arpanet connections. Arpanet was the RND. Project to create a means for different computers to send data back and forth between each other. Even if those computers relied upon different computer languages, and even if they were separated by many, many miles from one another part of this required, the design and production of a brand new technology, a router Arp behead contract, the company BBN technologies to build the first routers back in nineteen sixty eight took a year, but on October twenty ninth nineteen sixty-nine computers at the Stanford research institute at the university of California and Santa Barbara and at the university of Utah would connect through these routers. The first message sent across this three node network was low L O. This was actually Christopher Klein's attempt to log in L O G I N to the SRI computer remotely, but the Sarai. Computer crashed in mid message. And so low is all we got also held typical is it the server goes down. Just when you have something important to send to it. It dates all the way back to the beginning of the Arpanet, but more seriously this connection showed that remote. Computers would be able to send data back and forth using network communication standards. And also relying upon technologies like packet switching that involves dividing data such as the data that represents a file into smaller packets and each packet has information about where the data's from where it's going and how it fits into the overall collection of information. So that you can when I say you so that a computer, can reconstruct the file these ideas, we get fleshed out over the next several years and important moment would happen in nineteen seventy four when Vint CERF and Bob Kahn would publish a protocol for packet network interconnection which laid out the principles behind. PCP, but I've done full episodes about Arpanet. So for this episode. We'll just remind you that that was something that was happening at this time, and we'll also point out some of the big moments as they tie back into our. So the main purpose of Arpanet, by the way, that was just to create those Bethel Ogies for computer networks, but one of the applications perhaps one of the benefits that are Bose really interested in was the idea that by creating distributed networks of computers, the US could maintain some communications and command structures in the event of nuclear strike. So it's kind of scary..
"darpa" Discussed on TechStuff
"Weather batteries would drain too quickly since there's would go dead earlier than expected. It was also really hard to get an accurate placement of sensors the sensors were being deployed from aircraft and dropped directly onto the jungle floor in some cases without a parachute. They acted almost like a spear and went straight down and would imbed into the ground. So it was kind of hard to get them placed. Just right. Plus it was very dangerous. There were flight crews that were constantly under fire while trying to deploy the sensors so it was a very tough thing to do. And it never quite got out to the level that the Jason group had really envisioned, and it didn't really pan out for Vietnam. But it did prove to be a powerful proof of concept for unmanned sensors and system of systems in which a large amount of data could be fed into an analysis system for real time combat conditions in decisions and essentially a lot of military officials after the fact said yet didn't. In Vietnam because it never been done before it didn't it wasn't fully baked, but it was a proof of concept that would become invaluable in future. Conflicts back at home are pa- provided funding to the Stanford research institute in in the efforts to develop a robot with the ability to navigate its way through a set of rooms which was a truly revolutionary chievements back in the mid nineteen sixties Arpaio would agree to the proposal that Stanford gave to them and so work began on what would eventually be known as shakey the robot. It's called shaky because the robot would shake as it moved this project took several years the actual robot wasn't ready for a demonstration until the early nineteen seventies. But it began in the mid nineteen sixties Arp is research and work during the Vietnam conflict stuff that would impact the Vietnam conflict continued throughout the entire history of our involvement in the Vietnam war, and it would continue to harm the reputation of the agency as. Well, in many ways by the time, the United States would withdraw from the Vietnam war Arpaio would end up being separated from the Pentagon and set up a new offices and also have a much lower budget than it had before. In our next episode. I will talk a little bit more about some of the final projects that are did in connection to the Vietnam war. Also, talk about some of the crazy, psychological projects that are got involved with as well as some of the other cool technological projects that the agency got involved with now because this history is so dense, and because it involves so many different topics and technologies of many of which we are enjoying the benefits of today. I am probably going to break this up. So that our next episode will be the last one in this DARPA ark. And then I'll take a break from DARPA, and we'll talk about some other technologies, and then perhaps a few more weeks from now I'll come back, and we'll continue the story of DARPA because I don't want tech stuff to become DARPA stuff. But I do think that the full story of DARPA is fascinating. And we will have to come back. To it. So next episode. We'll probably wrap up the nineteen sixties since I've done four episodes. And I haven't been able to get through a decade yet. And then we'll see where we are after that. And continue it further into the future. If you guys have suggestions for topics I should tackle and future. Episodes of tech stuff. It doesn't have to be a multi episode arc. It could be.
"darpa" Discussed on TechStuff
"Welcome to tech stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer. And I love all things tech. And today we're going to start a week long journey to talk about a very important agency that relates to technology in many episodes of tech stuff. I have referenced DARPA also known as the defense advanced research projects agency, it is the research arm of the United States Department of defense and DARPA projects have led to some pretty incredible technologies like the internet and on Thomas cars. Spoiler alert for this week. But what about the agency itself what is its history? So in the following episodes hope to give you guys an insight into one of the most secretive organizations in the United States this agency hides in plain sight, and it essentially. Advertises itself with some of its larger profile projects like the various grand challenges that led to things like autonomous cars, and and and more advanced humanoid robots. So I'll be talking more about some of those in my upcoming suite of episodes about Thomas cars when I get into that. I'll I'll cover it a little bit in these episodes Bogo into more detail when we get into the Thomas car, sweet, ultimately, the purpose of DARPA is to make the United States technologically superior to other countries as to maintain technological superiority, and that includes making high-tech, weaponry and military systems. It is part of the defense department. So while many of the stories about DARPA have focused on the golly, gee, whiz that texture as amazing side of things we're gonna look at the whole picture, which sometimes gets pretty darn grim. But I think it's important to consider both the good and the bad. We shouldn't just you know, focus. On one at the expense of the other. So to understand the climate that would create DARPA we really need to think back to World War Two and the development of the atomic bomb the Manhattan project took advantage of some of the most talented physicists and engineers in America. And during the course of the development of the atomic bomb, which was based off the process of nuclear vision. Splitting the atom the team also explored the possibility of a fusion bomb aka hydrogen bomb now during World War Two the Manhattan project focused mainly on vision bombs because a lot more work was going to be needed to make a fusion bomb possible. There was work being done on that. But it was trailing way behind. It was considered to be far more complicated and difficult to do and therefore it was given lower priority because of the necessity to build a bomb in a wartime environment. So some members of the team ended. Being opposed to working on a fusion bomb. Particularly once the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deployed because they were worried. Well, they said the atomic bombs were already bad enough. The fusion bomb would be much much more destructive. There was even a fear that such a device might ignite the atmosphere sentenced setting the atmosphere itself on fire, which would obviously kill everyone all over the world after a single detonation the idea that you could have a world ending event by detonating one of these bombs, but even without that doomsday scenario, the thought was that such a bomb would cause such widespread. Devastation that it would by its nature wipe out civilian populations that there'd be no dancing around it that you could argue well, these other bombs we've created we meant for military installations and tragically that also meant that civilian populations were affected. Because of their proximity to those military installations with a fusion bomb. The effect would be so large that you couldn't really use that as a justification. It was going to affect millions of people. So it raised serious ethical concerns. Among many who were working on the Manhattan project after World War Two. And after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was still ongoing debate about whether or not any work should be done on creating a hydrogen bomb, then in nineteen forty nine the Soviet Union would conduct its first test of an atomic bomb detonation, and that changed things in the US. The general advisory committee of the US atomic energy commission unanimously recommended that the United States not pursue the development of a hydrogen bomb. This was all the the conscientious objectors who said such a technology is too terrible to even develop let alone build and deploy that group would include people like..
"darpa" Discussed on Stuff They Don't Want You To Know Audio
"I think it's really cool aesthetic sky for sure it had a lot of big blimps though. Think to it did. Yeah. You said wanted with Angelina Jolie, this is the she was in sky, captain too. Oh, cool. I patch. If I recall right yet. So spinning the bullet or whatever you forget what they called it. Yeah. I don't remember what they called the the comic book adaptation holds up a little bit better. I think okay, right self guided bullets in the film at wanted the assassins are able to use the powers of their mind to change the direction the trajectory of a bullet after its fired. Pretty neat. Yeah. Weirdly specific superpower school DARPA working on it is working on making that in real life building ammunition with a guidance system to keep it on target right now, the specifics about how that works are classified and probably will be classified of been might be a situation where we don't learn that this technology exists until we hear reports of it being used in war in a conflict. He said like, we didn't really know the people had stealth helicopters until one crashed dude there is a thing. There's a website called future ISM dot com. And they're purporting to have a video. Of what they're calling exacto the extreme accuracy tasked ordinance. It's a system that they're demonstrating where it showing a guided bullet. Whoa. And it's pretty crazy. So I don't know if I believe this. Yeah. So it showing a red line, which is the trajectory of where the bullet as it's being fired and sent down towards this target. He shows you where it would be. And then it shows the moving target way in the distance. And it shows the bullet change directions and follow the target and actually hit the target. It's crazy. That's insane. I don't I mean, it's from DARPA TV from their their actual YouTube channel. So they'll show it in action. But they won't tell you how the nuts and bolts of how it works. Exactly. How is this technology much different from like guided missiles, for example, or like, you know, heat heat seekers, or whatever, it's just more micro technology. Oh, you're talking about the bullet the bull. Yeah. I mean, that's essentially what it is. There are some bullets you can get that are considered rocket bullets essentially than actually shoot out exhaust as they're firing being fired through the air. So it's kind of like this. It's just somehow there is a either a small CPU or something that's guiding it why it's actually inside the piece of metal that you're firing a weapon working with some other system. That's tracking. Whatever the target is. It's just it seems so futuristic and these are just a few. Few of the fascinating frightening, sometimes inspiring things that DARPA is working on do wanna be clear that a lot of DARPA does is just facilitate independent. Researchers gives you money gives you money gives you support and it gives you direction. I yes. But it is one of those things where you can see all of these varying compartmentalized programs where perhaps purposefully DARPA makes it unknown to the left arm with the right arm is doing and all of that situation because if you add up some of these programs. You're not only getting super soldiers. You're not only getting Dr drone jogs your own. But it's genuinely creeps me out. Just thinking that a single force or a country or power will have access to these things at some point in the future. But there's another argument to be made here which is dangerous. It's kinda sticky. The argument is if we don't do it says insert country here, then someone else will too good of an argument, we either build the bullets or we get shot by them. Yeah. And it's I mean, it's kind of a zero sum acquainting way of thinking. But it is it does have some validity to it. And the truth is that DARPA is very P Diddy about this won't stop. You know what I mean? It's a it's this feedback loop of research, success and investment and. It is an important thing. We can't stress enough there. Tremendous, medical innovations that occur because of this sort of research, but it goes hand in hand with these other goals nation state would have I mean to sum it up when we talk about what DARPA is working on. We don't know what we don't know. But we can guess as you said that we can put pieces together you can write to DARPA directly and ask them. They have a great PR department..
"darpa" Discussed on Stuff They Don't Want You To Know Audio
"Monitoring couldn't just be flipped using only technology and electrons. It would have to be like hard surgically hardwired in in a way that it actually touched all these system. Yeah. Could affect the levels of these brain chemicals. Right. It would have two different doodad. Probably. Well, here's the thing is there's another DARPA project that has to do specifically with the mind being able to control. Roll various pieces of hardware and software, basically using the mind as your keyboard and your mouse, which there are already some rudimentary versions of this early stage. You know, early levels of being able to do this where you're strapped into a big piece of machinery that you know, has a bunch of wires that go from sensors on your on your head your skull into big supercomputer. And then it's crunching all the numbers as as it's reading essentially, your brain waves in actively within sectors of your brain. Well, what DARPA wants to do is have essentially a helmet a system that goes inside a helmet for every soldier and or pilot enter just who whoever else is out on the field where they could control systems, not only possibly hardware systems. But also just seeing software. Sure. And having visuals of what they're what they're looking at essentially if you if you ever hit option when you're playing an first per. Shooter. And you go the map and look at the overlay. They really wanna be able to do that for every soldier, and why wouldn't you? And then also imagine. This is this is getting muddied because you'll see a lot of these programs at some point do converge merge. So imagine a soldier that uses this bring computer interface to orchestrate the movements of drones. So. Yeah, a single soldier with their own retinue of UAB's different sizes and stuff. Yeah. And you just you sick, Fido, or the raptor, whatever on the target or you send it out to get a look around the corner for you. I mean, obviously, that's a great idea. If you're in charge, and you're the one with all the guns and the drones in the brain interfaces. And now, of course, the next question is when does that go to the public? Yeah. Our children in the future going to grow up with drones that are their pet drone similar to the way kids. Grow up with cats and dogs today. It's possible. But the one thing that it is currently being used for a lot of this technology is to control something like a prosthetic limb. If you've got a full arm, amputation or injury, where you've lost your arm you, and you've got a prosthetic on their three using some of these systems where can actually sense parts of your muscles. Like where there's a neuro chemical signal being sent for your brain down to your shoulder. Something you can you can both see those at the brain level when it's being sent. And then when it reaches your shoulder when you connect to those two signals up, you can actually teach your arm and your brain to control an entire limb that you could not be able to do without just using brain. It's pretty incredible this, it's crazy cool. But then you extrapolate that to something like an ex skeleton or go really crazy go to like the Pacific rim kind of thing where it's a giant Yeager like, yeah. Exactly unmet for real. And I know that's. It's kind of silly even imagine that. But that's just one of the first steps to getting the word. You're looking for is awesome. I loved Pacific rim. I no regrets. I know it's big dumb movie and both of them. I hope I hope they make a third one. I like full on to. Well, it's not as nita's voltron because the they can't they don't have a giant laser sword in their all in like over they wolves or something. Like, I forget what they were there. Different memories Panthers. Right there Panthers. Thanks. I think right in and let us know while we're on the subject of drones. Let's examine an assumption. That a lot of people have made myself included, at least whenever the subject comes up and say idea, the drones are all aerial airborne. They're not. We'll be back after a word from our sponsor..
"darpa" Discussed on Stuff They Don't Want You To Know Audio
"It was across the country and around this time in nineteen seventy one. That's when Arp got changed to DARPA. So you might hear some people call the early internet DARPA net. But again, they have these name changes back and forth. The idea of adding defense to any government property or institution already strikes people's a little bit Orwellian. Yeah. So they went back and forth change the name changed it back and as of nineteen ninety six going forward. It's still DARPA. They get tons and tons of credit from people who were impressed by the bold chievements of this institution. But they get no small amount of criticism. From opponents and journalists who say, hey, this is weird. This top secret technology, perhaps there are some things men was not meant to know. Maybe there are, but they have other notable programs as you said will they made the internet. That's kind of big. I mean, that's the reason we have jobs. Yeah. Exactly. We talked about the in another episode, the corona satellite system that they set up where it actually took physical pictures. Actual film pictures of the earth, and then would send the canisters down was really really cool program and the Showtime rotisserie chicken machine, I receive not know that. Yeah. That that that it I started. They're all started at DARPA just set it and forget it. They did satellites for essentially what became GPS. Yeah. Nice. Well, it's nice that we finally have access to it. We can use it for our menial little, you know, Aaron running. We'll be without would I do without it. I don't know. I would go nowhere. If stay. Yeah. I have a horrible direction. So thank you. Dr by allowing me to live a productive life. And all we had to do is give up any vestige of privacy. Yeah. Exactly. I have it. And we could go through things we talked about the vela's incident. Remember this detecting whether or not a nuclear explosion has occurred somewhere on earth, they figured that out. And right after that, they figured out the computer mouse, the very first computer mouse. Oh, that's right for more stuff of genius days. Exactly. Yeah. Stuff of genius is a short animated program that you find on YouTube on stuff genius dot com. So on and you can search for Douglas Engelbert adds his name while of that name. It's kinda like Ingle, Bert Humperdinck or something. Oh, yeah. Or Benedict Cumberbatch? These are just fun names to say DARPA also did a lot of innovative work with stealth aircraft tons, and they launched the first as you said met, dedicated satellite. Or weather satellite in this case, t roast one awesome. And that was way back in the day to eighteen sixty. Yeah. Yeah. April first nineteen sixty two. So today's episode is not so much about that stuff in the past which you can find very easily today's episode about the question that should be on everyone's mind when we are dealing with the US is genuine mad science department. It's not what have they done. It's what are they doing now? Yeah. What's coming up? The answers might surprise you. And they should definitely frighten. You here's where it gets crease. Again, crazy already been we're going to be here for a while. I'm reading so the biggest the biggest thing which I think is easily predictable right? Is the push for a I artificial intelligence what our friend Damian Williams likes to call machine. Gene consciousness. Yeah. It's intense stuff here. And we've got to read some portions here of a public relations released from DARPA, and they're talking about in the nineteen sixties they shape too the first wave of AI technologies, and that's really just them talking about systems running nearly defined tasks right? We kind of understand that. That's what computers do. But it says that these systems were fragile and limited than in the nineteen nineties. They should in the second wave of machine learning that actually started looking at statistical pattern recognizers from large amounts of data. So taking a ton of data and going, okay? I understand patterns here understand patterns here..
"darpa" Discussed on Real Time with Bill Maher
"Save it for ten, Jesus. Give me your pickup. Doing for the universe. All right. So let's get serious because we need a pallet cleanser totally pallets. Books are price me because you talk about the alliance between the military and science. And usually when liberals do that, it's anti military, but you're not? Yeah. I mean, I started anti military. I mean, I was a grew up in New York City which is liberal town generally anti war, and my earliest exposure to society was in the sixties. I wasn't a participant but observed it. We're about the same age and Vietnam war was a bad thing to turn bad and all war was bad. And so the idea that could ever be a just war was not even thought. Meanwhile, I had this cognitive dissonance, you'd walk around towns doesn't matter which town and their monuments to war heroes and their astride a horse, the burned burnishing, their weapons. And I said, why do these exist? And it would take years for me to recognize that Vietnam war was not like other wars. And in the second World War people knew that like bad. Bad forces operating in Europe and we have to rise up against him. And so back, then you wouldn't say, war is bad. You say, we need this war. Otherwise we lose civil, be no it and we need every weapon to fight it. Yes, in my parents were in the European theater when the bomb came along, they didn't go, oh, I don't know if we should use the bar. They said, I don't wanna go to Japan drop whatever you have, right, right. And so so I had to come out of this bubble. It's a bubble to recognize that there are occasions where you need and want to be defended. You needed want security. And then I recognize that my field, the field of astrophysics has been a handmaiden to to MIT the actions of the military, all around the world for centuries and millennia going back to just navigation. We don't make the bombs or the weapons, but we care about things that the military also cares about all division that DARPA division DARPA. Yeah, defensive research project minister is what it's for. That's what it's called. Supersecret and you know the there was scary. So they are horrible, horrible stuff. Oh, no, no, no, that's their job. Did the military Brima your horrible weapons. That's not the mission statement of DARPA DARPA. Yes, it is. That's exactly the mission saving, and that's what we do. Our women's. We already had that we know about are horrible, daisy cutters. And you know the internet Albor. Yes, yes. Well, house. The internet? Yes, I use. Okay. So what? Why are we talking about DARPA in this other way? Okay. Is in how transformed the world because it's a debate show. Let's talk about. All right. Trump suggested space force recently immediately thought of you. I didn't really thought of Star Trek, but no, no tore into it. Yes, of course. Yeah. Just because it came out of trade off, not because not really thought it through. Like the Jetsons when he said it sounded like George Jetson. I'll give you that. What I'm saying, today's air force questioning whether it should have ever been spawned off from the army and branch of the military to which it once belonged in the second World War it was the army air force, and we realized no two soldiers for the air force have to be differently trained. They gotta fly planes than soldiers on the ground, the engineers for the air or different from the engineers fix tanks. So this spawned off and now we accept it as a natural branch of a theater of operations that is necessary for the military. The air force currently has a US space command. They're already thinking got stuff. They put up the GPS satellites that was there that space. Okay. So now a space force. Give it up..
"darpa" Discussed on StarTalk Radio
"Siri traces back to a DARPA project got spun out of SRI as a company called Siri that got acquired by apple and became a product, so so all of those technologies. But you know, this is the magic right as public dollars sparked all of those technologies that you know changed how we live and work. She's taking credit for the internet smartphones, and Siri is that is that is she all that almost all of that. The biggest one in what's meant at DARPA reputation was network computers. The Arpanet, which was fully and wholly a DARPA innovation which went directly into the internet, let thank God. They changed the name from Arpanet because that's the internet for really old people. AARP. She's absolutely right that Siri also came directly out of DARPA program at turned out the military wasn't interested, so they spun it off apple badeah. It's in your iphone. What are the actual origins of Arpanet within DARPA? Because I read that at something to do with linking together the few survivors after nuclear holocaust. So is that is that true? It's mostly untrue. Mostly. This Armageddon, which is. Myth was that had nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It was just scientists that wanna computers to talk to each other. And that's a little bit of a myth too. So what it was was the Pentagon was worried about command and control of nuclear weapons. So they asked Arba, can you look at this issue, command and control of nuclear weapons DARPA hired a scientist didn't care about nuclear weapons. He wanted computers to talk to each other. So it was both coming together. Coming up. Next, we're going to explore how DARPA stepped into my world my world of space, and we're gonna see how they had a project to try to protect America's national security in space when star talk returns..
"darpa" Discussed on StarTalk Radio
"It was created this real political panic in the country that we were losing space. Race. The Soviet Union would have intercontinental ballistic missiles that would reach the United States. We said it was fun. This agency with what's the mission statement to do whatever the secretary of defense directs it to do. It was very vague except it was supposed to take on space programs. It was before NASA. It was the nation's for space agency, and that's not as good MRs statement at all. Hey, whatever the. Do we should do? So it's also some have considered DARPA the place where mad scientists go or given free rein. So what are some of the craziest maddest things to come out of their one of the original mad scientists DARPA was a scientist, a Greek scientists, Nick Christoph. Let's who had these fantastic immigrant was exactly and he was genius and scientists loved him. DARPA loved him. So one of his first ideas was a force field. We were worried about Soviet missiles attack the United States. So he said, what? If you launched a bunch of of nuclear weapons in the upper atmosphere that would release killer electrons and fry anything coming through it, it would be planetary force field. That was one idea. Oh, that's ready. That this is. Create a forest could go wrong. Yes. Another fascinating idea of creating a particle beam, weapons, same thing to take down Soviet missiles. You would just need to drain the Great Lakes to power it all at once by them. Yeah, you would put nuclear weapons under the Great Lakes to drain them to power out of the box ideas. They were very out of the box. You know, I'm starting to believe that DARPA might stand for drugs are really pretty awesome. And another way my list here a project Pandora, what does that was a top. We should. We should be cautious of anything called project Pandora. They chose that name appropriately. So in the nineteen sixties, the CIA discovered that the US embassy in Moscow was being radiated. They were sitting low level pulsed, microwaves, and this was a time when there was radiant, who the Soviets the Russians radiating us the American embassy in Moscow, yes, with microwaves, and this was a time. A lot of literature was coming out that maybe pulsed, microwaves could alter human behavior, affect the mind. So the own my God, the Soviets are trying to control our diplomats minds and so better. We didn't know better when really they would just slow cooking. Yeah. For the DARPA to test. This could microwaves the a mind control weapon, right? So those do quite pan. As as people had brats, we lack psychic, super weapons. Two. But other programs have panned out famously and responsible for some of our most sophisticated military innovations. So I asked the DARPA ahead about the intersection of technology and the military and what role play. So let's check it out. They're two sides of DARPA because again, our job is for national security. So one facet of it is these core underlying technologies like networking that you have to have if you're going to build sophisticated military capability, and the other is is military systems that we demonstrate like this thing called stealth aircraft, which also started as DARPA project and the whole idea of precision strike where instead of using massive weapons that wipe out everything, you develop the very sophisticated ability to find a very specific target communicate back and deliver a missile to precisely that location rendering weapons completely absurd in the face of that. Well, everything up to and including nuclear weapons about greater mass and greater destructive power. Precision said, we wanna hit exactly what we wanna hit and we can be really, it was driven out of the idea that this again back to the Soviets, the Soviets we knew had more forces. And they had tactical nuclear weapons. And we said there has to be different way to fight that kind of fight. So stuff and precision, weaponry. Somebody has to think that up and decide that that's the thing to do so. So what prompted darker to go there? Ironically, at grew out of our most failed war effort, which was Vietnam. I'm DARPA had been very heavily involved in Vietnam and developing things like a quiet aircraft Vietnam counterinsurgency on precision weapons for bombing targets..
"darpa" Discussed on StarTalk Radio
"We'd be course Chuck nice a nail. Abiding viewing always always. Make America smart again? Sure. His my, let's make America smart against shirt. It's. Quite frankly, is very coolest shirt, and we got with us tonight. Sharon Weinberger. Hello. Author. Fat people write and read fat books there right them. I I hope hope they they read. read. So the imagine years of war, the untold story of DARPA the Pentagon agency that changed the world. So DARPA Stanford, what? What? What is darker stands for the defense advanced research projects agency. And so you're journalist, you follow this industry for a long time, been writing about Pentagon funded science and technology for about the past seventeen years. This book is the practice about five years of interviews research and writing. You must do a well because you're still alive. I just saying just saying she was undercover until this moment. So tonight refuting my interview with the former head of DARPA a rottie probe car, and we met during her tenure as chief of DARPA in Washington DC. So let's check it out. Growing up to me, Docker was always this mysterious, you know, what are they doing there? I don't know, but it's really cool when they will find out maybe. That the mission statement that I just can't. Well, as long as it moves the needle as long as it really changes the world and especially national security than, yeah, that's that's what we do. DARPA is an agency that is very, very small were two hundred government employees, right? And and all of us here in this office building in Arlington, Virginia. Right above our heads. We don't have labs. We don't have any fixed infrastructure. We, we are critically dependent all on all the places and people that do your budget. It's about three billion about thirty three billion a year. He just give away all that money. Now. By the way, give money just don't make sense together, and it's just to be clear. What we do is we bring in program managers really smart people in their fields. They come in for typically about three to five years of duty tour of duty. They are here for short time. What they come in to do is to craft a program it might be, can I make ship that can sail without any sailors on board? It might be something about a next generation of artificial intelligence that might be about biological technologies, whatever, whatever area they wanna know what all what are all the really creative are the crazy sort of mind-bending ideas and, and you know, they listened to all of that. They go out and Bill talk to the user community and the DOD, for example, and especially, but between thinking about where the big problems are and we're the science and technology could take you it. That listening is a key part of how they come up with that vision. So so we are very interested in people's big new. A wormhole. Okay. I wanna tell security that one. I wanna transporter. Don't we all flying car. So when are we going to get these things? There was a DARPA project called the hundred year starship that looked at wormhole travel, so really hundred years, maybe that's up domestic. That's certainly not a waste of money. I like the way you put it a hundred years. So none of us will be here to bitch about. So, okay, you also had a robotic soldiers and in there and like force fields and mind, control crazy stuff could be right, they could, and the ideas come back again every few decades. The idea of a force field that can can protect the planet. The idea of mind control all these reputation? Yes. Spooky mysterious reputation that DARPA has has sustained over all these decades spooky. It a lot of its work has been secret has been classified. It's also at times that of touted itself touted by others as a science fiction agency, some of which is overblown, but some of which is true. So your men in black basically. Okay. So what are the origins of darker DARPA dates back to nineteen fifty eight and basically in the fall of nineteen fifty seven. The Sobia -portant Nassau got funded that was the geophysical year. A lot of science tech stuff was coming together. It was coming together in a lot of it was prompted by the October nineteen. Fifty, seven launch of Sputnik. This is the Soviet Union's launch. The first artificial satellite, and it's hard to imagine now, but it was sort of nine eleven moment..