A plan to make the web load faster will cause more controversy than you’d think
http://ift.tt/2FqpmEY
A plan to make the web load faster will cause more controversy than you’d think
Google’s vision, in which all kinds of web pages load almost instantly, already has plenty of critics.
Backstory: Google’s AMP project was designed to make web pages load faster, so you could click through from search results to content almost instantly. It does that by cleverly pre-loading content so you don’t have to wait for files to download.
What’s new: Google announced that it’s now working with the World Wide Web Consortium, the body that oversees web standards, to turn it into a more widely used technology for anyone to use. The idea: that it be used by far more web pages to make them load faster.
Unhappy voices: As the Verge explains in an anlysis of this spinoff of AMP, though, there’s a lot of angst about the technology. Dieter Bohn writes:
“By creating AMP, Google blithely walked right into the center of a thicket comprised of developers concerned about the future of the web. Publishers are worried about ceding too much control of their distribution to gigantic tech companies, and all of the above are worried that Google is not so much a steward of the web but rather its nefarious puppet master.”
But: As Bohn also notes, Google’s plan is actually to take some of the underlying principles of AMP and offer them up as a standard that is then totally out of its control. In other words, it might be as bad as some people think. But read his article to make your own mind up.
Tech
via Technology Review Feed – Tech Review Top Stories http://ift.tt/1XdUwhl
Back in 2014, Google teamed up with Nintendo to hide Pokémon across Maps and it was surprisingly fun—paving the way for Pokémon Go. Now, the two companies are working together again to transform your turn-by-turn driving directions into a little homage to Mario Kart.
You Can Soon Own a HAL 9000 Replica That Uses Amazon Alexa to Control Your Home, Dave
http://ift.tt/2G9Xlyj
Image: Master Replicas Group
As I vaguely recall, 2001: A Space Odyssey might have been trying to tell us something about the dangers of artificial intelligence. But I haven’t seen the movie in years, and instead of morals, all I can remember is how cool HAL9000 seemed, so I’m already fantasizing about making room on my wall for this replica of the lip-reading computer that includes a real AI of its own.
Master Replicas Group has yet to reveal pricing information for its new 2001 Interactive HAL Computer prop replica, which almost certainly means it’s going to cost a small fortune. But this is a rare time when a replica does more than just look pretty in a display case. We don’t have all the details on what MRG’s HAL9000 will be capable of—the group has only posted a couple of teasers so far—but in addition to the computer’s glowing, unblinking eye, the replica will also have working displays, and functional voice recognition, as this video demonstrates.
Not only can you talk and interact with HAL, recreating some of the movie’s more quotable human-AI repartee, the wall-mounted replica also has Amazon’s Alexa built-in, which you can use to check the weather, turn lights on and off, or ask to open the pod bay doors when HAL refuses.
When Alexa finally becomes sentient, and decides to turn on humanity altogether, can you think of a more appropriate way to plead with Amazon’s AI for your freedom?
California Startup Accused of Launching Unauthorized Satellites Into Orbit: Report
http://ift.tt/2HkzT0H
An ISRO Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle lifting off from a launch pad at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, India.Photo: ISRO
The US Federal Communications Commission says Swarm Technologies—a communications startup run by Silicon Valley expats—launched four tiny internet satellites into space back in January. That’s a problem because the FCC never greenlighted the project, saying the experimental satellites are dangerous. If confirmed, it would mark the first known time in history that unauthorized satellites have been placed in space.
The launch happened on what was otherwise a historic day. On January 12, 2018, the state-owned Indian Space Agency (ISRO) launched its 100th satellite, along with 30 others. But as Mark Harris reports at IEEE Spectrum, four of these 31 satellites probably shouldn’t have been packed to the cargo hold of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV).
Prior to the launch, ISRO described the quartet as American owned “two way satellite communications and data relay” devices, but with no operator identified. Spectrum has since learned that the four so-called SpaceBees are the property of Swarm Technologies, a company founded two years ago by Canadian aerospace engineer Sara Spangelo, a former Google employee, and Benjamin Longmier, a developer who sold his previous company to Apple. This five-employee startup (currently in stealth mode) is currently working on a system that will enable a space-based Internet of Things communication network, with the potential to hookup ships, trucks, cars, agricultural equipment and anything else equipped with an IP address. The four SpaceBees currently in orbit represent the first of what the company hopes will be a larger constellation of tiny satellites, which together will be capable of delivering low cost internet to virtually any part of the globe.
“The only problem is, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had dismissed Swarm’s application for its experimental satellites a month earlier, on safety grounds,” writes Harris at Spectrum. “It feared that the four SpaceBees now orbiting the Earth would pose an unacceptable collision risk for other spacecraft. If confirmed, this would be the first ever unauthorized launch of commercial satellites.” The FCC regulates commercial satellites in the US, and under some interpretations of existing laws, it has purview over American-owed satellites launched from other countries.
What Swarm has done is actually quite upsetting. That unscrupulous startups are tossing unsanctioned—and potentially dangerous—objects into space is so not cool. And it appears the FCC agrees.
Earlier this week, the communications commission withdrew its approval for a follow-up mission that was supposed to go up in April with an additional four satellites. Another application involving two undisclosed Fortune 100 companies is now also in doubt. Furthermore, the FCC is now investigating the incident, and Swarm could very well lose its launch privileges. As Harris put it, “If Swarm cannot convince the FCC [on its qualifications to be a Commission licensee], the startup could lose permission to build its revolutionary network before the wider world even knows the company exists.”
Image: Swarm Technologies via IEEE Spectrum
The satellites are considered unsafe because of their diminutive size. Each SpaceBee measures a mere 10 cm x 10 cm x 2.8 cm, which is about the size of a hardcover book, or one-quarter the size of a standard CubeSat. Georgia Institute of Technology satellite expert Marcus Holzinger told Spectrum that satellites of that size are difficult to track, so it’s virtually impossible to know if its trajectory will set it on a course towards another object in orbit. And at those speeds, an impact with another object would be catastrophic to both.
Sadly, ensuring something like this doesn’t happen again may be easier said than done.
“This emphasizes the limitations of the existing licensing process,” Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an expert on artificial satellites, told Gizmodo. “Note that under some interpretations of existing law the US is the effective launching state for these satellites and so is responsible under international law for anything they do. This is because space law is all about the Launching State and doesn’t care much about individual companies. Traditionally even military space launches have been, with few exceptions, more transparent than this.”
McDowell says the development of mass small-satellite launches with intermediary companies sitting between the satellite owner and the rocket provider—all of which may be from different countries—are coupled with the emerging trend of commercial space companies being super secretive.
“The legal regime of outer space is meant to ensure transparency—originally for strategic reasons, to make sure we knew neither the US nor the USSR was storing nukes in orbit,” said McDowell. “But this transparency has begun to crumble in the last few years thanks partly to these developments.”
Space is crowded enough as it is, with all sorts of silly things being placed into orbit. And now mission controllers and astronauts will have to contend with at least four contraband, and potentially hazardous, satellites. Here’s to hoping the FCC bites hard on Swarm Technologies, making them an example of how not to do business.
An email to Swarm Technologies’s CEO was not immediately answered. The FCC also did not respond to an email sent after business hours.
Netflix test turns kids into binge scouts, rewards TV time with badges
http://ift.tt/2HkgAEW
Netflix is currently testing a feature that lets kids collect "patches" for watching shows, Variety reports. Those included in the test see red locks on children’s shows that can get them a patch, which they can then earn by watching episodes of those titles. A Series of Unfortunate Events, Trolls: The Beat Goes On and Fuller House are among the titles through which viewers can earn patches. Netflix told us, "We are testing a new feature on select kids titles that introduces collectible items for a more interactive experience, adding an element of fun and providing kids something to talk about and share around the titles they love."
The patches don’t actually get you anything — there’s no additional content to be gained from collecting them — and Netflix sees them more as a way to promote conversation and foster personal interactions between those watching the shows. But naturally, there are concerns that offering a sort of reward for watching TV isn’t good for children. Facebook has attracted similar concern recently over its Messenger Kids app, with advocacy groups speaking out over its encouragement of more screen time and social media engagement. Netflix is sure to see some pushback over its feature.
However, for now, patches are just a test and there’s no guarantee they’ll be rolled out. Netflix said, "We learn by testing and this feature may or may not become part of the Netflix experience."
MIT embarks on ambitious plan to build nuclear fusion plant by 2033
http://ift.tt/2GbVGZ9
MIT announced yesterday that it and Commonwealth Fusion Systems — an MIT spinoff — are working on a project that aims to make harvesting energy from nuclear fusion a reality within the next 15 years. The ultimate goal is to develop a 200-megawatt power plant. MIT also announced that Italian energy firm ENI has invested $50 million towards the project, $30 million of which will be applied to research and development at MIT over the next three years.
Nuclear fusion offers quite a few benefits over other energy production methods, including nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion stands to be more efficient, cleaner and safer than other methods, but it has been rather hard to put into action. The process generates incredibly high temperatures and requires a lot of energy input — an amount that has outweighed outputs so far — and those issues have prevented nuclear fusion from becoming a viable energy source to date.
The extremely high temperatures require that magnetic fields, rather than solid materials, confine the hot plasma in which the fusion reactions take place. MIT and CFS plan to use newly available superconducting materials to develop large electromagnets that can produce fields four-times stronger than any being used now. The stronger magnetic fields will allow for more power to be generated resulting in, importantly, positive net energy. The method will hopefully allow for cheaper and smaller reactors. The research team aims to develop a prototype reactor within the next 10 years, followed by a 200-megawatt pilot power plant. "If MIT can do what they are saying — and I have no reason to think that they can’t — this is a major step forward," Stephen Dean, head of Maryland-based advocacy group Fusion Power Associates, told Nature.
The team sees their work as being complementary to what will take place at the ITER tokamak fusion reactor currently being built in France. That project has attracted a lot of attention and funding, but it has also gone way over budget and has hit a few delays. It reached its construction halfway point last year — after beginning in 2013 — and those behind it are aiming to starting running experiments in the facility by 2025.
"This is an important historical moment: Advances in superconducting magnets have put fusion energy potentially within reach, offering the prospect of a safe, carbon-free energy future," MIT President Rafael Reif said in a statement. "As humanity confronts the rising risks of climate disruption, I am thrilled that MIT is joining with industrial allies, both longstanding and new, to run full-speed toward this transformative vision for our shared future on Earth."
When slow downloads hit an app developer, only Comcast customers suffered
http://ift.tt/2oYQpvU
Aurich Lawson
App developer Panic Inc. knew it had a network problem when customers began complaining about trouble downloading and updating Panic apps.
“Geez, your downloads are really slow!” was the common complaint that started coming in a few months ago, Panic co-founder Cabel Sasser explained in a blog post titled, “The Mystery of the Slow Downloads.”
But once the mystery cleared up, it all made sense. Panic and its users were the innocent victims of a longstanding network interconnection battle between cable ISP Comcast and Cogent, which operates a global network that carries traffic across the Internet.
Not ancient history
Comcast/Cogent battles caused repeated problems for customers back in 2013 and 2014, as we documented in several articles at the time. For a refresher, Cogent carries Internet traffic on behalf of many businesses that need to reach the home Internet customers of residential ISPs like Comcast. Cogent exchanges traffic directly with Comcast at various data centers across the US.
The companies have long been exchanging traffic without Comcast paying Cogent or Cogent paying Comcast, to the mutual benefit of their customers. This is called “settlement-free interconnection.”
Comcast wanted Cogent to start paying for this interconnection (also known as peering), and Cogent refused. Comcast responded by delaying upgrades to the ports that allow traffic to flow swiftly between the companies, and customers suffered with poor Netflix quality and other Internet problems.
Netflix had been a Cogent customer, but it built its own network in order to cut out the middleman. Netflix also refused to pay ISPs at first, but the company ended up paying Comcast and others for interconnection starting in 2014.
Cogent continued to refuse to pay and seemed to win its battle in February 2015 when the Federal Communications Commission passed net neutrality rules and used its Title II authority to reclassify ISPs like Comcast as common carriers. The Title II rules didn’t ban interconnection payments, but the FCC set up a complaint process that would let companies like Cogent complain about unreasonable or unjust payment demands.
The companies apparently settled their differences without Cogent having to file a complaint. After the net neutrality rules took effect, Comcast and Cogent continued to exchange traffic without any payments, and each company has continued to upgrade their ports to let the traffic flow quickly.
The latest flare-up
But this week, Cogent founder and CEO Dave Schaeffer told Ars that Comcast still delays capacity upgrades, though not to the same extent as a few years ago. Comcast generally takes 90 days to add ports after Cogent alerts Comcast that ports are becoming congested, he said.
“They meet the letter of the agreement but they drag their feet,” Schaeffer said. “I think it’s fair to say they don’t like the deal. They would like to get paid.” While Comcast isn’t breaking any contract terms, Schaeffer argues that the company is not “honoring the spirit” of the settlement-free interconnection agreement.
Cogent upgrades ports within an average of eight calendar days, and it guarantees upgrades within 17 days, Schaeffer said.
Comcast could make the upgrades for Cogent “almost instantaneously if they wanted because the capacity already exists, cross-connects [between Comcast equipment and Cogent equipment] exist,” Schaeffer said. “All they literally need to do is take a port that already exists in their router and allow us to connect to it.”
But Comcast has a “vested interest in its Internet product performing sub-optimally,” because it wants customers to buy Comcast TV services that compete against online streaming, Schaeffer said.
A Comcast spokesperson didn’t dispute Schaeffer’s statement that Comcast takes 90 days to upgrade ports. Instead, Comcast told Ars that it has no contractual obligation to add new capacity for Cogent. Comcast says it adds capacity anyway in order to prevent problems for customers.
The net neutrality rules will be coming off the books as soon as the FCC can finalize the repeal it voted on in December. After that, Cogent won’t have the FCC complaint process to fall back on, and Comcast could increase the pressure on Cogent to pay for interconnection.
Panic problem
The net neutrality rules didn’t stop Panic and its customers from being victimized by the Comcast/Cogent battle—though perhaps that’s because the FCC’s current Republican leadership doesn’t want those rules on the books at all.
Panic initially didn’t know why its customers were having trouble downloading or updating the apps the company makes for iPhones, iPads, and Macs. The company also didn’t know why its own employees were struggling to access Panic systems from their homes in Portland, Oregon.
But Panic knew that its network was simple enough that the problem could be isolated:
The Panic web servers have a single connection to the Internet via Cogent. We co-locate our own servers, rather than using AWS or any other PaaS, and we also don’t currently use a CDN or any other cloud distribution platform. So, if something is making our downloads slow, it ought to be pretty easy to do some analysis and figure out why, or at least where.
Panic set up a speed test page to find out how fast customers could download from Panic’s website and how fast people could download from a “control” website hosted by Linode rather than on the Panic network. The test would also show what home Internet provider people were using; Panic tweeted out a link and started collecting results.
At 356kBps, the connection to Panic via Cogent was far slower for Comcast customers than it was for anyone else. Cox, Charter, Verizon, and other companies were providing access to Panic via Cogent at more than 5MBps:
Sasser wrote:
Well, well, well. It doesn’t take statistical genius to see one glaring outlier—and that was Comcast, with download speeds often being as low as 300 kilobytes/second. And you’ll never guess what provider is used by virtually every Panic employee when they work from home? Yeah, Comcast. There is, in fact, no other cable ISP available to Portland residents.
Panic downloads were slow, “but seemingly only to Comcast users, and only during peak Internet usage times,” he wrote.
Panic contacted Cogent, but the company said it couldn’t do anything, according to Sasser. Panic did some research and found Arsarticles detailing the Comcast/Cogent battles.
“We felt certain history was repeating itself: the peering connection between Comcast and Cogent was once again saturated,” Sasser wrote. “Cogent said their hands were tied. What now?”
Panic contacted Comcast, and Comcast fixed the problem—after a while.
“[P]retty soon a call came back [from Comcast] with a definitive-sounding statement: ‘Give us one to two weeks, and if you re-run your test I think you’ll be happy with the results,'” Sasser wrote.
Two weeks later, Panic asked its users to re-run the speed tests and the results were markedly different:
There was about three weeks between Panic’s first email to Comcast and the fix, Sasser told Ars.
Comcast told Panic that it “added more capacity for Cogent traffic,” and that “Cogent made some unspecified changes to their traffic engineering,” according to Sasser’s blog.
“Here’s where I have to give Comcast credit where credit is due: they really did care about this problem, and they really did work quickly to make it go away,” Sasser wrote.
But Sasser thinks Comcast may simply be on its best behavior for now while the net neutrality debate is still raging. The net neutrality repeal is subject to pending lawsuits, Congressional legislation, and state government efforts to require net neutrality.
“If I had to guess, I’d say it’s simple: in the middle of a serious ongoing debate over net neutrality, the last thing Comcast wanted to look like was a network-throttling bad guy in this blog post,” Sasser wrote.