Hello, hello, is that, yeah, all right. The sensing of the technical difficulties. Thanks for the introduction, Mike. So yeah, this is joint work with Karmit and Manolan Peter. We're all in the room. So if you have any extra questions after the talk, because I'm going to have to skip some things, you can catch us at any point during the conference. So I want to start, also not by giving you what is MPC, we're all in the MPC session, we know what it's about. But we also all agree that this is great and there's many problems that MPC can address, right? We have a lot of parties that want to do maybe private service, statistics. We have the farmers in Denmark that want to do their sugar beet oxygen. We have all these blockchain people that want to do secret stuff. And there's a problem with some of these scenarios, which is that most of the protocols we have at the moment for MPC don't really scale very well for having these many, many parties. The reason for this is that we have achieved a lot, but we have always been focusing on this scenario, which we have a few number of parties, a very like two, three, or it can generalize, but it blows up a lot. So these kinds of scenarios what we do sometimes is that we have maybe, we say, oh, we have some servers and we are going to expect these thousands of parties to agree that some of these three are going to be fine. And that's sometimes not very realistic when you consider that each of these thousand parties is going to trust at least one of these three servers, for example, or you can do these techniques of sampling a random subset of parties, this committee, that is going to run MPC for everyone. But still, if you start with thousands of parties, you're going to end up with a committee that has tens or hundreds of parties, very, very likely. So this is the starting point of our work. Can we do things better here? And we are considering also this honest majority here. And the reason for this is that if we are going for many parties, let's exploit this to make our protocols more secure. So the more parties we are going to have, the more trustworthy this system is going to be. And I think a good example for this, apart from all the ones I gave, is this Tor metrics project within the Tor project in which you have like 6,000 relays on the Tor network. And at the moment, we don't really know much about what's going on within Tor. We have some statistics that they provide, but they don't use MPC for this. What they do is that they obfuscate their data before publishing it, and then you get some aggregate result that it's going to be affected by this kind of noise that you're aggregating locally. And also most of these 6,000 parties, they don't really provide data because they're still not really trusting this. So if we had MPC that would scale to this many parties, we could have more complex functions. Parties would be probably more willing to provide data and so on.  How can we improve the traffic on the network? And so on. All right, so more concretely, the setting that we're studying here is concrete efficiency because we want people to run these kind of things eventually for this large number of parties, tens, hundreds, thousands. As this is one of the first steps, we're just going to deal with static passive adversaries, but still we're in this strong, dishonest majority setting. And our protocols are going to be in this offline online phase like with fever triples or capital circuits for Boolean circuits. So now about the complexity of practical protocols for MPC. We have this kind of vague picture. This is not really accurate, but it's like, oh, if we have the dishonest majority, we have this quadratic complexity in the number of parties times the security parameter. Otherwise you can do something like n log n. But also one of the issues here in the literature is that when we were thinking about the dishonest majority because we were thinking of these very few parties, we were thinking most of the time of this full threshold adversary in which all but one of the parties was corrupted. But is it really realistic to consider that when you have 1,000 parties, 999 of them are conspiring against the single honest guy? Well, I don't think it is really. So this is the fact that we exploit in our protocols. So can we do protocols where each honest party present on the computation is going to help us to get something more efficient? The answer is yes, otherwise I wouldn't be here. So we have new passive GMW style protocols in which we have 10 up to 25 times less communication that the best result in the literature like published last year by the Tsukidol. On the constant round setting, we produce garbled circuits on the BMR paradigm where we reduce by up to a factor of seven, the communication in garbling the circuit. And we also get a more online phase that is a bit more circuit dependent. All these details about the garbled circuits, you can ask me later or here or offline because I won't have time to discuss. But it is interesting that these are the best improvements we get, but for small as 20 parties, we start getting protocols that are more efficient. And they are quite efficient already when we have like 10 to 30% honest parties, which is not a lot to ask when you have that many. All right, so I want to introduce you to what is the technique that we're using. This is a very simple example. If you understand this, you're going to understand everything else. So imagine you have end servers. We're going to give a number and a color to each one and they want to encrypt the message. Now the way they can do this is that each of them is going to hash their key. And now they are going to send these hashes to the message. And we know that this is indistinguishable from random as long as the keys are security parameter long. Even in this case in which, oops, sorry, all but one of the servers are corrupted. But what happens now if we assume that we have eight honest parties, right? So the title of the paper might give you the idea already. What happens if we use shorter keys? So instead of having this security parameter long keys, we are going to have some arbitrary smaller length L, these keys. And now we want to argue whether this is still indistinguishable from random. Intuitively, the adversary has to guess each of the short keys of each honest party, right? But formally, is this secure? Well, one of the problems with having these L-bit keys is that each of the hash functions has a very small possibility, small domain for the keys you can choose. So imagine you have L equal to, you only have four possible keys. You can brute force this very, very easily. And in particular, we can represent this brute forcing by this matrix product. So we have the columns here representing the evaluation of the hash function in each of the possible keys. There's two to the L keys, remember. And then here we have this vector of length two to the L and having weight one, that is going to represent which key we pick. So this is another way of representing this evaluation here. So if we just substitute this for every hash function, what we end up having is this matrix product, where we have this matrix H filled with random values, which are the evaluations of the hash function. And on the right, we have these H blocks, each of them with length two to the L and having weight one. So this sum of the hashes now is equivalent to saying, okay, is this value Y, which is the matrix times this vector? Is this indistinguishable from random? Now, there's another way in which you could look at this that is much nicer. Maybe you go looking at the colors and you say, well, this is the flag of New York City. No, it's not that. So what this is, is a coding theory problem where we can look at H as the parity check matrix of our random binary linear code. E is going to be an error in a code word which has this particular regularity property where we have these blocks, each of them, one for each other's party. The length is related to the keys and they have having weight one. Then we also have Y, which is the syndrome from which we want to recover the error. This is the problem you have in coding theory. You have your syndrome and you want to recover the error. So now the problem is given this parity check matrix and the error, sorry, and the syndrome, can we recover E? So someone might think that I'm cheating you because this looks more like a key recovery attack. This was the keys and I was just talking about indistinguishability. But it turns out that we have a search to the decision reduction, so actually finding E is as hard as distinguishing Y from random. So this is very nice. It's also not the first time this problem has been used in cryptography. Actually for the Shathri competition, there was this fast syndrome-based hashing proposed by Agot, Vines and Sentrier. It turns out that adding this regularity to the syndrome decoding problem doesn't make things much easier and the syndrome decoding problem is equivalent to learning parity with noise, which is a problem that we are widely using in the literature. And now what we have to deal with is getting these parameters right where R in this matrix that we had is the length of the message that we're masking. Then we have L for the key length and H for the number of onus parties.  So if you don't like all of this assumption, which actually there's many, many people who have studied it, you can just have larger age and you're going to have something that is statistically secure. But yeah, I wouldn't be able to name all of the people here, but these are works that have studied concretely these regular syndrome decoding problem or the techniques that are used to crypto-analysing. All right, so if we got that example, it's going to be easy doing the rest of the talk. As I said, we have two results. We have a secret sharing kind of result. So this is what we call here, like this tiny GMW. And then we have also a garbled circuits result, which is this tiny BMR. For the secret sharing base protocol, we get a key length as small as one bit, single bit. And this is what I'm going to focus on during the rest of the talk. And for garbled circuits, L can only be as small as five, which is quite good already. This is actually quite challenging. So I'm going to skip this because there could be too many details, but one of the difficulties here was dealing with circuits that have a very high fan out. So if you have a gate that's going to fill many, many gates, this is going to be difficult with our assumption. This is a relative problem to what happens when you have the pre-exert technique, when you have this correlation that is across all your gates in the circuit. So I'm going to give a very quick recap of GMW and then a graph about our complexities more concretely, and that will be the end of the talk and you can ask questions. All right, so GMW is a secret sharing base protocol where each of the parties here is going to have an additive share of, remember we're dealing with Boolean circuits. So we have all linear operations that can be done locally. So if we want to add these values X and Y, we can participate just locally at their shares. But the problem comes when we have to compute the end of two bits, because we need to compute this product here, all these cross-products actually. But we know how to do this. If we have oblivious transfer and we have one out of two oblivious transfer for bits, this is equivalent to multiplication. So if Alice has as her inputs R and R plus YJ, and both has as the choice bit the value XI, what Bob is going to get here is R plus XI times YJ, right? If XI is zero, he's just getting R, otherwise he gets that. Now what Alice and Bob got is a secret sharing of XY times YJ, which would be one of these cross-products here. And oblivious transfer is very nice, but we know that it requires public key operations. Nevertheless, we also know that we can do this great technique called OT extension. So here we are following the technique by XI at all, XI, Kylian, Wism, and Petrank in 2003, where we have this base OTs in which we are going to use public key. So we have security parameter one out of two OTs on these security parameter strings. I'm not going to give you much detail, but what you can think is that each of these OTs, each of these security parameter OTs, is kind of fixing one bit of Bob's secret key. And this secret key then can be combined with symmetric crypto to obtain many, many OTs. So just using a PRG, some hash function, and some messages from Bob to Alice, we're going to get these R OTs, where R is as big as we want. So what's the way we improve this? We change the keys again. Instead of doing security parameter base OTs, we're just going to do L of them. So this is reducing the number of public key operations, but most importantly in practice, this is going to reduce the communication complexity here. But there is some problem with this actually, which is that this OT now becomes leaky. So there is this, at some point here, you're hashing, Bob is kind of hashing his key, and he's sending that plus his trace bits to Alice. And now the problem is that I said that L can be as small as one bit. So Alice can just try the two different keys and can very easily learn the trace bits of Bob. Here with Bob, I'm representing the R inputs of Bob to each OT. So this is completely broken, right? What are we doing here? Well, let's use a broken primitive to do a secure protocol. So here in blue, I'm representing honest parties, and red are corrupted parties. Remember, we want to compute the end of these two values. And one of the ways in which we can represent this product is like this. We can just represent as the product of this, which with the parentheses over there, right? For everyone. We also have our leaky OT. So the honest parties are going to compute an OT with this X as their inputs. And now each malicious part is going to learn this kind of leakage from all of them. So on the short key that was set up plus the inputs. Now, it's going fast. So we knew that each of these, like it's very easy to break, right? So how are we going to get around of this? Well, instead of having the parties, the honest parties to run the leaky OT with their actual inputs, we are going to re-randomize these inputs by using some random sharings of zero. So it's a party, it's a less party. So P1 is going to mask it with some value is S1J, P2 with a value S2J. And what it holds with these values is that if we sum them across this first coordinate, they give zero. So now the leakage, oh, sorry. Well, the correctness is still going to hold. And what happens with the leakage now is that these values are uniformly random. So each of these messages is going to look uniformly random. But nevertheless, they are still correlated, right? So individually, they are uniformly random. But what happens when you look at the join distribution? So if you sum all of these, you're the adversary. Now you can go like, okay, this I know that it is zero because it's the sum of all the sharings of zero. I can take that out. So now I have this leakage. We have the sum of the H short keys of the NS parties plus the honest shares that I was missing. So if you understood the example at the beginning of the talk, this is exactly what I gave with the toyed example of the distributed encryption. We have the H short keys. So we know that this is secure under our assumptions. So that's it. That's the simple technique that we use. And we get some, so this is our results. Sorry, more concretely. On the blue line, we have the best version of GMW that we have at the moment in the passive setting. So we have around, this is a plot for 200 parties. This is the communication complexity for producing a triple or competing an AND gate. On orange, we have this technique of using committees. So this means that if we have, for example, 10 NS parties, instead of running GMW between all of them, we are going to run it between 191. So we know there's at least one NS party and we can just reduce to the known problem. And in red is our results where we combine these committees with the short keys technique. So we're going to have two committees, one that has H NS parties, the other one with one party, and we're going to combine these. So that's in a bit more detail what we do. So yeah, this is our work, our work or a part of our work, better said. We have introduced this new technique of distributing trust in NPC when we have this large-scale scenario where the more honest parties we have, the shorter we can make the keys, the better communication complexity and computation as well. We improve protocols for as soon as we have 20 or more parties. For secret sharing, we get up to 25 improvements in communication compared with the best protocol secure against all but one corruptions or the gap you could see from the previous slide when you use committees. For garbled circuits, we get up to seven times better communication for the garbling of the circuit, which is the most costly part. And our online phase is up to three times faster, depending on the circuit. So as I said, there's these challenges with dealing with the fan out of the specific circuit. So this is an interesting problem to explore, maybe compilers that are good for this or a more concrete analysis. Also, as I said, this was the first step. We took a second step already. We have an actively secure version of this tiny keys technique in which we apply tiny keys to the tiny t-protocol where we have this kind of pairwise information theoretic max. And what we are doing is that we are doing this one's shirt and we are still secure. So that's going to be Zoom on E-print. Also, there are some challenges still open. We can maybe optimize this more. Maybe if we got even more cryptonized, it would be great because we have some quite conservative parameters at the moment in our experiments and yeah, getting more applications as well. So that's it. Thank you very much and I'll take any questions. Thank you.


What's going on everyone? Sam here with late sports cards. I've been 23, pretty many plates and patches, football hobby, 12 box, full case break, number 11. Random team style, there's a look again at your random results. As always, you can find those on the website under the results tab, as well as the link in chat. Good luck everybody. Let's do it. Four to go, plates and patches divisions, that's it. Four, two, go. Gonna do some gold packs with plates as well. Gonna get four gold packs, random off to four winners in that break. Four gold packs everybody. So good luck now everybody. Let's do it. It's like $50 value per spot there. You have a 50-50 chance essentially of winning a gold pack. Which is kind of gnarly, if you ask me. Spike that, did you see that? What'd you say? That wasn't much of a spike though. Spike Donnie. Alright, we've got, ooh that's nice. That is gonna be Cadarius Tony, 5-5 for the Chiefs. I don't know to be honest Anthony, I don't think he does. Quentin Johnson Rookie. Pangles for three breaks recently. Nice one here, Michael Meyer. That is gonna be going to the Raiders, 197 out of 300. Nice one here as well, I believe is this gonna be number to five? That is Tank Dell, four of five. Nice one there, congrats Taxins on the Graffiti. Graffiti Splash, four of five Tank Dell, congrats Houston. Nice one for the Titans is Warn Moon, 48-49, a highly revered auto. Congrats to Tennessee. And nice one here is gonna be Patch Trio, 18 of 50, Dak Prescott. They forgot to cut out the patch there. We'll send an empty box and wrap her with a cowboy. Still a nice Carby, it's not like visible damage to it, but we'll send it in case you want to replace it. Mike Williams, that is a Tank Bigsby. Nice one there too, 35 for the Jags. Really nice one here is gonna be a Jameer Gibbs, 66 of 149, RPA for the Lions. Got Trey Tucker, 48 of 50 going to the Raiders. Nice one there, congrats Vegas. Nice, James picking up some flawless spots, good stuff James. And Tyree Wilson, six of 55 going to the Raiders on the double coverage patch. Luke Keekley, 235 for the Panthers, love that Keekley's got some respect in this. Brian Burns Base, triple B, Brian Burns Base. This is a Roshan Johnson, 58 of 75 going to the Bears, two color, two color, congrats Chicago. Got a Bryant Young, All Hall, class of 2022 to 149 for the Niners. And Steel Signatures to 300, Jonathan Mingo going to the Panthers, congrats Carolina. Jonathan Mingo, that's heavy, fairly lifted up Donnie. Lot of metal in this, lot of metal in this. Tyler Scott, base rookie for the Bears, that's kind of cool. Chris Olave, two of 10, nice congrats on that Saints. There you go New Orleans. Nice one here coming up, let's go into the Seahawks, Jackson Smith and Jigba to 300. Steel Signatures, JSN, JSN. Got a Jake Hayner, that is 37 of 50 going to the Saints. And nice one here for Anthony, how about a Zay Flowers, 20 of 75 on the Purple. Rookie Reflections, three color and two color, nice one, congrats on that. Lot of metal Donnie. Again guys, four to go, four gold packs to four winners. There's a Debo base. Nice one here again for the Ravens, that is going to be a Zay Flowers, 18 of 35, congrats Anthony. Little color match action there, one's up Zay. That's a 149 Jamiro Gibbs, rookie auto again for the Lions, congrats Detroit, Jamiro Gibbs. Got a Trey Tucker, nice one for the Raiders, the 300 on card Steel Signatures auto. Patch Trio, 205, Jordan Love, that's going to the Packers, congrats Green Bay. Two color patch on top and then one color, one color. Mack Jones on the Nuclear, congrats on that case hit. Nice one there, New England, Patriots Mack Jones. We've got a Sam Laporta, going to the Lions, rookie auto to 149. Nice one here, congrats Anthony. That is going to be a five of 10, Justin Tucker on the marquee marks. Or no, one of 50, excuse me, one of 50, congrats Anthony, nice one there buddy. Little Tucker auto. We've got a Quentin Johnson, 42 of 45, double coverage Jersey card.  Michael Meyer, 255, congrats to the Raiders, but going to get you an empty box and wrapper. Okay, on to the next, Darnell Mooney, base card. Mark Andrews, that is to 35 for the Ravens. Got a Tyler Scott, 205, nice one there, graffiti splash for the Bears on the rookie. Nice one on Chicago. Nice one here, going to the Cardinals, full coverage, eight of 10, Clayton Tune. Congrats on that Arizona, Clayton Tune. And that is acetate, you can kind of tell there you can see the shadow, acetate. We've got highly revered Ahmad Rashad to 149 for the Vikings, cool one Vikings. Congrats on that Minnesota. And a full coverage, Luke Shoenmaker, 27 of 45, going to the Cowboys. Congrats again, Cowboys. Again, last break of the night, full case of this right here, plates and patches. Last break with spots, that is it. Four to go, we're halfway sold out. And Tee will go after this. And then we'll finish with plates and we'll be into personals. Thank you all. There's Adrian O'Connell to 25. Adrian Peterson base, place on. Joe Burrow swag champ to 75, there you go, Steven. Nice one there, buddy. Joe Burrow action. We've got a Justin Herbert, Marquis Marks Red. Congrats on that one there, Chargers. Going to, he's got to Los Angeles. Sean S, congrats Sean. The Red will be numbered two, Marquis Marks. Red is to 10. Number 10, Donnie. Congrats on that, L.A. Get that magged. And a Devontae Smith, 13 of 35 for Donnie's Philadelphia Eagles. Sorry, I'm busy writing stuff. You're good. Got a TJ Watts. He's acting like he's surprised. Yeah, we're going to get gold packs for four winners in the, when we do, we'll do a random for gold packs in the plates and patches divisions. Gabe Davis, nice one there to 35. That is a Jaden Reed to 149 for the Packers. Chris does equal bot. Got nice one here. Steel signatures is Mike Williams from, I believe, last year's, yes, last year's elements to 35. So you got the quarterback and one of his receivers. And then A, Chris Olave, 22 of 50. Patch trio, one color. Or no, two color, three color, one color. It's Kyle equals two times the body. What'd you say? I was waiting for it. Chris is just walking in a wall somewhere. Not actually lagging. Not computing correctly. Yeah, he's lagging somewhere. So it was Kyle though. There's Jerome Bettis to 35. CD lamb. Josh Allen swag champ four color patch to 50. Nice one for the bills. Beep, beep, beep. Got A. Dalton Kincaid to 300. Nice one for the bills. Bill's doing well in this box. That's Bufalo. And A, Jordan Love, 26 of 35. Going to the Packers. There's too many bots in here, Donnie. I know. To go, four gold packs included. To four of our individuals who take divisions in plates and patches. That's Bryce Young Rookie. Nice. Congrats on that one. Still on dial up. Sam Laporta to 35. Nice one here for the Eagles. Is going to be A at Tanner McKee. 15 of 149. Congrats on that Eagles. Tanner McKee. QB2. QB2. And Donnie's eyes. Two of 75. Paul Jokeleco, part of the New York SAC exchange. Nice one there for the Jets. Congrats, Jets. And Jameer Gibbs to 45 for the Lions. That's why you beeped when you should have pooped. These people need something to do, man. I got these guys out of here. I hired these guys. God. Start carding people here. We've got Jim Kelly for the bills. Nice one here. Rookie is Jaden Reed to 35. Did it again, Donnie. I'm five for six with this guy in my cases. Going to the Colts. Anthony Richardson, 12 of 75. Congrats on that Indianapolis. Going to, who has the Colts?apolis Colts. Matthew A. Congrats, Matthew. There you go, buddy. Anthony Richardson coming your way. We'll get that into a mag. Ray Tucker going through the Raiders on the steel signature. And last in the break, going to the Bengals. Patch Trio at T Higgins, 23 of 50. One color and two three colors. Congrats on that. Sissy from the Patch Trio. All right. Quick recap here, everybody. We have the Nuclear of Mack Jones. Jameer Gibbs, Josh Allen, Chris Olave, Joe Burrow, Luke Schoonmaker, Michael Meyer, Quentin Johnson, Jordan Love, Zay Flowers, Roshan Johnson, Tyree Wilson, Dak Prescott, and T Higgins. Autos we had. Trey Tucker, Joe Cleco, Tanner McKee, Dalton Kincaid, Jordan Love, Mike Williams, Jaden Reed, Davante Smith, Clayton Tune, Ahmad Rashad, Justin Tucker, Sam Laporta, Trey Tucker, Jameer Gibbs, Jake Hainer, Jackson Smith and Jigba, Jonathan Mingo, Bryant Young, Trey Tucker, Jameer Gibbs, Warren Moon to five. Tank Dell, Michael Meyer, two mag hits. We had a Justin Herbert to 10. And an Anthony Richardson to 75. Forticles. I'll do it for the break, everybody. Thanks again for the fill. Coming up is NT.


So my beautiful people I am back with another Dying Light 2 video and today guys I want to showcase to you a new weapon blueprint known as the Dying Force, one exclusive to the Doom Easter Egg which you've probably seen by now but if you haven't I will explain all. As it going guys my name is DPJ and if you do enjoy the video leaving a like really helps out and if you like what you see and want to see more be sure to subscribe. Ok so I want light years, this is the second time I've been attempting to record this weapon because the first time I used it just wasn't working. What this thing is supposed to do is and I'll show you the blueprint it's supposed to basically use the forces in star wars and you'd use say Darth Vader's force you'd hold people up in mid air like suspended in mid air and choke them out.


SiliconANGLE.tv and wikibon.org present Oracle Open World 2011. And now, host John Furrier and Dave Vellante on theCUBE. Okay, welcome everyone to theCUBE, SiliconANGLE.tv's presentation of theCUBE here at Oracle Open World 2011. My name is John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANGLE.com and I'm here with... I'm Dave Vellante of wikibon.org and we are here covering all the angles, SiliconANGLE.tv, SiliconANGLE.com and wikibon.org. If you've got questions, come on to the sites. We'll be covering the show like a blanket, John. SiliconANGLE.com and wikibon's flagship telecast, theCUBE goes to the top events in the industry, goes out, extracts a signal from the noise and shares that knowledge with you. And we're here excited because Oracle is the big, bad 500 pound gorilla Dave on the marketplace and they're making a lot of money. They've got a huge ecosystem. They have a certain strategy that's different than everyone else's but they attract the biggest and brightest customers and industry players to this event and we're going to cover it for three days. For the next three days, eight hours a day, in depth, guests, spotlights, our normal commentary, controversial opinions, bring it to you live, unfiltered here on the ground floor where again, year two Dave, we snuck in to Oracle. We did not get an official invite to broadcast so we sneak into QLogic's booth here. QLogic was kind enough to donate half their booth to us so we want to thank QLogic for supporting us here. Great spot here in the QLogic booth and we'll be broadcasting as you said, John, for three days and another point you made is Oracle is different, aren't they? They don't just follow everybody else. They march to their own drummer, don't they? Yeah, I mean, Oracle is a big company and as we say, the big, bad, evil, 500 pound gorilla and some people say they're doing a good job but Larry Ellison's keynote last night really exemplifies Oracle's kind of culture. They just come out there, it's like racing the sailboats.  They just want to steamroll the industry. Well, you were at the keynote last night and it got kind of mixed reviews, didn't it? That being kind there but I was there today. You were there last night, give us your take and I'll take you through what we heard today. Well, I think someone's going to get fired for that keynote because Larry Ellison's teleprompter kind of crashed and he kind of was flailing and twisting in the wind, actually turning around presentation 101, never look at the slides. He actually turned around looking at the monitor and he was prepped a bit but he definitely was winging it and at the end he abruptly left the stage and I tweeted at that time, someone will be fired. So it was, I heard it was a big exodump. A lot of exologic, exadata, exa, mega, exa. I mean, I was a classic Larry Ellison trying to be Steve Jobs. I actually was critical of his keynote. I thought it was horrible but I liked Larry up there. To me, seeing Larry doing his thing, industry legend, I've been watching him for 15 years at these events and the billionaire rolls in, does his thing, Mark hers in the front row and then now with Twitter you have a whole nother event going on, kind of simultaneously. So to me I thought the keynote was classic, Oracle, lay out the agenda, all hardware, all performance, ex of this, ex of that. So clearly they're going hard at a closed integrated system, a lot of Apple on the consumer side. So clearly that's the play for Oracle and Larry did his thing. As you said, depositioning the competition, putting Oracle in positive light. He did not zing and throw anyone under the bus. He did throw terror data under the bus at one point but I think we'll see Larry, as you said, at the Wednesday's keynote, just to trash everyone. Yeah, so this morning we heard from EMC's executives, EMC's Joe Tucci who's been on theCUBE and Pat Gelsinger who's a many time CUBE alum. They were up on stage for a long time actually. I don't know, they must have shelled out some serious dough for that but I don't know how that works but they had some great face time with the audience. The place was packed, they had very strong messaging I thought around VMware, Cloud and big data. And they did so respectfully because it's Oracle's home court so they're not going to trash Oracle even though Oracle's probably going to trash EMC on Wednesday but they were very strong I thought. The messaging was good. They talked about positioning things like Hadoop and Green Plum alongside of Oracle which of course is not going to be Oracle's messaging I would imagine. Well I've been Oracle yesterday, Larry's keynote. I don't think he used the word big data once in a slide.  He actually didn't even come out and use the word big data so clearly Oracle has no interest in promoting anything like Hadoop or anything like that unless they acquire like a Cloudera. So, you know, to me when I heard about this I'm like, wow, Cloudera would be a great acquisition for Oracle. Michaels and Solt is coming to Oracle knows how to deal with those guys but if they bought Cloudera they would have an open source trifecta they'd have Java, they'd have MySQL and then they'd have the unstructured. So, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle's kicking the tires on Cloudera. Well, they announced some Hadoop appliance this week and so, but I just wanted to share with you as well the EMC had Chad Sacketsch up on stage another CUBE alum doing all kinds of crazy demos and usually these demos are pretty dry, right? You've seen them before and it's point and click and provisioning databases, woo! But he got the crowd going pretty well and the way they did it is they were running social graphs doing a demo of an insurance company seeing what the insurance rate would be for Gelsinger and then they ran one for Tucci showing him driving fast cars and it was good tongue-in-cheek and then they started doing Ellison, the boat and everything else and Pat of course cut Chad off after that and it was quite funny, the audience was laughing and then Heard came up and he really didn't give a presentation he just sort of played some videos. What was his insurance policy like? Yeah, well, yeah, there you go. Some serious premiums on that. So Heard basically played a video, a mind-melting, face-melting video on Oracle like 20 of the 20 top banks, 20 of the 20 top telcos, 10 times faster, 17 times faster, 50 times better, that kind of video and in that video they were, I think it was Safra Katz who's making comments, we are big data in the cloud too. I mean Oracle, you know Oracle yesterday I made a tweet that got retweeted a lot and Ellison wants to be the Steve Jobs of the industry enterprise and he made again the reference this year that like Apple, it's proprietary, it's closed and that works for them, creates amazing products but I tweeted and said, hey, Steve Jobs disrupted an industry, music, all kinds with cloud and everything else and consumer, Oracle's really not disrupting anything they are an incumbent so to me they're like this big company it's extracting rents and all the big accounts so of course they got the top accounts they bought out the entire industry and it's evil everyone else so Oracle has a huge presence so it's easy for them to flash those slides but to me, I don't see Oracle really innovating like the way Apple did on the consumer side I think they just have a huge presence, they aren't incumbent, clearly that's why the message of performance was driven home I think Larry, I'll see you with this whole sailing mentality, competitiveness wants to use performance as his main sales inhibitor differentiator so I think that's a good move for Oracle and that's what an incumbent would do Yeah well, I mean, you're right and of course we've obviously pointed out the warts in Oracle over the past several, you know, a couple of cube gigs and years but the numbers speak for themselves I wanted to comment on what I wanted to make though Oracle was founded by Ellison and I believe his other co-founders in 1977 and he's outlasted Gates, he's outlasted Jobs he's obviously outlasted Grove but Grove is older than Ellison he's outlasted them all, he's still hanging tough he's engaged and the numbers don't lie I mean this company threw off $12.3 billion in free cash flow in the last four quarters which is absolutely astounding I'll give you some other stats on operating profit Oracle's operating profit, post the Sun acquisition is 38% last quarter and they're claiming Saffir Katz is claiming they will get to the low 40s again which is 42% pre-Sun acquisition just here's some comparisons with that Microsoft 36%, this is operating margins SAP 27%, IBM 18%, EMC 15%, Hewlett Packard 8% I missed Apple at 33%, so Oracle's the king of operating profit and they're going post Sun acquisition even higher so we've talked about in the past that Sun acquisition, Oracle bought Sun for about 5.6 billion, it's trading at four times revenue that acquisition's worth around 28 billion now to Oracle shareholders, that's a $22 billion return in less than two years and that's pretty amazing Larry's not a dummy, I mean first of all I just want to say I liked to see Larry up on the stage I agree with you, started the company in 1977 he maverick, he rolls up on stage, does his thing everyone's laughing but it's really no joke it's kind of fun to watch and he's leading a huge company, the numbers speak for themselves but at the end of the day the Sun acquisition is a good deal and that's the ultimate trophy for Larry because back in the day the Sun was dominating and that's a nice trophy picked up from McNeely and company for a song at the time and now obviously leveraging it what's interesting is after watching the keynote yesterday all I could think about was HP the whole conversation around hardware was absolutely in my opinion a direct strike at HP saying hey you want to talk hardware we'll talk speeds and feeds, we'll talk all day long about performance and kind of trash the blade servers commodity blade servers but clearly you see Oracle looking like HP in that keynote not a lot of talk of software not a lot of talk about databases he kind of obviously talked about performance with exadata, et cetera, next analytics but for the most part to me the next trophy for Larry will be HP, Carish Wishart, all things D said there's no way that they'll buy HP but absolutely in their war room I can guarantee you there's a big acquisition of HP hostile takeover bid going on and obviously we report on siliconangle.com that HP is the higher Goldman to protect their interest against shareholder for reconfiguration so the civil war with an HP still goes on, their targets on their back Larry's got them lined up perfectly That's an interesting scenario John and I think it's definitely going on there At the last quarterly financial analyst meeting Ellison made this statement let me be clear on this I don't care if our x86 business goes to zero so his commodity x86 business he means so if there were to be an HP acquisition you can be sure that it would be a different looking company I mean they go after them HP doesn't want to be acquired they're going to be hostile takeover if the price drops low Oracle will roll in there and it's the ultimate trophy in my opinion but that being said HP has got organizational issues they're resolving Meg Whitman's the new CEO Ray Lane kind of chairman, active chairman ex Oracle they hate each other Larry and Ray so I think the move to get rid of Leo Apatecker fast was a good move, pay him the severance, move on the guy was not a good fit, Meg Whitman can bring that Silicon Valley mojo to HP and HP's got to fight back I think HP can't take any more punches from Oracle they're going to have to throw a few back How much dough did Leo take out of SAP? Was it 30 million? No, 12 million was the severance 12 million out of SAP? Out of SAP? Oh no HP, I don't know, I don't know what he did He only lasted at SAP for 10 months as CEO I thought he took 30 and I thought he's ultimately taking 30 out of HP I was saying if he doesn't one more time it'll be a hundred million dollars I mean not bad for getting fired twice and you know that's a great career path just pop in, over inflate your expertise and then get fired with severance why don't I do that? Yeah It's like damn So Dave, so the question that I want to ask you is let's compare and contrast last year and this year I know it's early day one we're going to go do a drill down we'll be here, wall-to-wall coverage of Oracle Open World but you know last year the vibe was kind of silent Oracle was throwing cloud in the box out there and the ecosystem was all here all present and accounted for but there wasn't a lot of vibe I mean everyone's kind of like almost scared so the ecosystem at Oracle is like SAP robust, there's a ton of dollars in the ecosystem but not a lot of energy like rah rah Oracle more like okay Oracle's just this big machine Well one of the big things that's different this year and last year is Oracle had just picked up Mark Hurd and they were going through a lawsuit and so HP was one of the few companies last year that Oracle didn't throw under the bus as you know and I would expect well it's already we've already seen pre-Oracle Open World with the whole autonomy rift that's changed the other thing that's changed is you know you heard a lot of marketing hyperbole with Exadata and Exologic last year but again the numbers don't lie I mean this product is kick and butt in the marketplace you're talking about a 150 district new customers in the quarter that bought Exadata a hundred actually brand new Exadata customers so I mean it's selling like crazy so a lot of people criticize it I've criticized it but why is Exadata selling so well? Here's why in fact Thomas Curian talked today about the secret sauce behind Exadata and he pointed to four things which are not that radical offloading storage functions to the disk something they call smart scanning something that EMC has been doing for years fast connectivity which is really infinite band and you know Q-Logic we're here in the Q-Logic booth they do a lot of infinite band stuff hierarchical storage management and heuristics that match data and device characteristics putting the hot data into flash and the cold data onto you know cheaper slower spinning disk and columnar compression those are four areas that you know aren't really anything radical but the packaging and the marketing and the execution of that business has been brilliant and that's really why it's being so successful So I'm just looking at Twitter here getting some feedback from folks out there that said the stream might not be working well if I check your browser Mark, you can just check the feed and we're on the floor here at Oracle Open World normally when we go to the events with the cube which we call the sports center the ESPN of tech we usually get a marquee location but Oracle would not let us kind of come in there and do that this year so we kind of got in through some support of Q-Logic go to Q-Logic.com they make fiber channel all the high-end you know networking adapters and switches for high-band with you know connectivity you know we heard Allison talking about a finnaband we'll come back to that in a minute but so we're here in Oracle and we snuck in they supported us here with the booth and we're going to do our normal independent live coverage of the event wall to wall we're going to analyze the keynotes talk to guests get their opinion extract the signal from the noise and for the folks out there on Twitter the hashtag is oracle open O O W 11 and then our hashtag is pound the cube fires some questions off to us if you want us to to address anything we will happy to talk candidly we're not afraid to hold back our opinions with an analysis so John you know a lot about big data and and Hadoop I mean you basically exposed us at Wikibon to that whole trend a couple years ago and Oracle this week has announced a Hadoop appliance they're basically throwing their hat in the ring and then the big data the big data and their vision is that essentially that Oracle databases will be the final resting place for all that distributed big data Alison says we've been doing unstructured data for a long long time this is nothing new to us what's your take on that is oracle you know the center of the big data universe or is oracle a boat anchor to big data uh... boat anchors actually good posts and you guys had a post on that that was excellent excellent analysis I think you know depends how you look at it I mean the trend of big iron was a mainframe concept you know the many many computer days the term glass house big iron for us old guys and over forty years old those those words mean something so so we're kind of going back to that cloud version of what a mainframe was or glass house so the notion of big iron something that comes out so if you look at the keynote yesterday you see big iron kind of concepts parallelism uh... parallel everything is what they're promoting that's essentially kind of a systems concept engineered specifically around uh... special purpose computing etc etc so that being said given oracle size dave and their opinion of I mean their their their opinion of how tech should go and their incumbent place in the big accounts yeah they are by default a major major player in big data if you define big data as having the database running a lot of these these production systems however that being said the trend is to move towards more of a decentralized client server like environment in a cloud so if you want to say there's a mainframe in the cloud you can also say there's a distributed software and many client server uh... architecture that's being promoted by SAP and others I don't think that oracle will be the resting place for data in the database I think that the database wars were going to continue I think you're going to see no sequel no database philosophy come out where you're going to see people engineer around oracle so you know my vision is that oracle will continue to be a player extracting rents from the marketplace but ultimately you're going to see new incumbents engineer around oracle putting stuff in front of an acceleration with SSD using software techniques and things like Hadoop et cetera now one of the things I would observe as you know oracle Ellison last year said we're going to spend four billion dollars this year on R&D and why stop there that's a serious change and Sam Palmasano of IBM said I worry about oracle I don't worry about HP I worry about oracle because they spend money on R&D so to oracle's credit while a lot of the technologies that they talk about aren't anything radically new they're not necessarily things that they invented they actually have the chops to actually spend money and deliver I mean let's be clear let's be just say you know with the elephants in the room everyone's afraid of oracle you know VMware's afraid of oracle I mean everyone's afraid of oracle they can have the market power to essentially stall any kind of proof of concept production movement of new concepts so whether it's a hypervisor or VMware or storage et cetera great point because you know we were at SAP Sapphire what was the big buzz of the show was SAP HANA right the in-memory analytics what did oracle announce Sunday night exolytics in-memory analytics right and what's that going to do that's going to freeze the market on HANA well the Twitter stream yesterday was pretty fun during the keynote is like it was kind of like a talk radio you know a lot of the folks you know stepped up and had some good tweets and some good content but after the Twitter stream died down after the keynote a lot of the thought leaders out there like Ray Wang and the analysts like Matt Eastwood et cetera and yourself and myself included we're on there talking about SAP and SAP actually had the mind share on the Twitter stream mainly because SAP's keynotes at Sapphire were so much more crisper from a market standpoint than Oracle Oracle talks speeds and feeds zeros and ones performance this and that SAP was much much specific around business value use cases and I thought their mobile story was compelling so I thought SAP had a significantly better message in the Sapphire conference than Oracle did yesterday I know it's early and that was part of the commentary and then people were talking about it Ray Wang's going to come on later today at one o'clock Pacific time and we're going to talk specifically about SAP products because Ray Wang's assertion Dave is that SAP's products really aren't really making it so we're going to talk to Ray at one o'clock today Ray Wang from Constellation Group great analyst covering the enterprise space we'll talk with him yeah he's a straight shooter so we're going to get to the bottom of that but so SAP has their challenges I talked to the SAP folks last night and they told me that you know hey we're ready to up our game and show the world that Madrid in November first week in November in Madrid Sapphire Europe's going to be there so we'll stay tuned they just had a very successful tech ed which we covered extensively in Silicon Anker Wookiee bonds so you know SAP is not a shrinking violet and they'll punch back so not afraid to pull the punches yeah I mean we've been at Sapphire now two years in a row and I like the vibe I think you're absolutely right John real emphasis on business value SAP is all about business and the other big message of course as you know is mobile and I question you know where is Oracle and mobile computing it seems their main mobile strategy is to you know use its Java ownership to sue the Android ecosystem right I mean you're seeing a lot of action there now I think the suit has merit I mean legally I'm not a lawyer but from what I've read and you know I've actually read the the license agreements that there is merit and they you know have every right to do that but what does that do for innovation what does that say about Oracle's you know commitment to innovation well Oracle's version of innovation is different than what an entrepreneur or you know venture capitalist and growing companies trying to take market share away and that is is that Oracle's clutching onto their accounts they're proud of their 350,000 customers as they said in the keynote they've had the top 20 this and that so Oracle is fighting their own cannibalization so so that's that that's what they have to do they have to essentially up their game and and Oracle's a master at stalling the marketplace and I think the keynote from Ellison to me speaks volumes that what they want to do is show the customers look at we can deliver performance there is no objection in the marketplace from a sales perspective that we can't sell around and then they use the power of the licensing agreements as we talked about last year to hold things in check so here HANA gets stalled by their exlytics Hadoop gets stalled with their no-sequel so Oracle's just really strong at competitive strategy got to give them that I have to say Oracle is very strong in maintaining their position and again I just don't see that that's counter to innovation that's holding on it's kind of like Microsoft holding on to windows well another thing that Ellison said recently is is again let me make it clear we have no interest in selling other people's IP we have interest in selling our own IP period that's what they're all about they define innovation in those terms well if they don't invent it they acquire it so he actually said that in the keynote yesterday times ten was the company he was in referencing to but I'm getting some you know tweets here from folks and comments on the online they say it's not about you know the product is about Larry and Larry is a showman I like watching him up on stage it's fun to watch even when he's bombing the keynote like he did yesterday and actually intimated he didn't actually say he was hungover he just said last night he was at his son's wedding in Palm Springs didn't sleep much which might be saying he just flew in so the slides teleprompter failed but overall fun keynote I was having a good time on Twitter I thought it was boring I hope he delivers a better job on Wednesday well it's always interesting when he talks about the competition which I'm sure is going to do on Wednesday now John we're going to shift gears a little bit here and dig into one of our spotlights as you know at VMworld this year we created this concept of spotlights and these are in-depth segments designed to help practitioners better understand a topic and they are sponsored segments the segment is sponsored by EMC backup and recovery group and we're going to look at Oracle backup so what John and I are going to do is have a little discussion about Oracle backup and some of the alternatives and options that DBAs and Oracle customers have and then we're going to drill in with some subject matter experts and we're going to talk to Steven Manley who's the CTO of EMC's BRS group we've got Steven Zay who's the senior vice president of SCI a CIO discussion and then we're going to go and deep into the technical side as well John so why don't we kick that off yeah I mean I think Dave I mean what people I just before we get started that I just want to say that you know people I talk in the industry all the time about you know this and that all the hot trends you know social networking cloud mobile social all the stuff we cover but when you hear what Larry Ellison is saying in his keynote one thing is coming clear with cloud and that is is that storage and we've been covering storage deep for over a year and a half now you've been doing it for very long time is the essence of the cloud so you talk about big data the database conversation it's all coming back to storage the storage equation is broken it's being transformed with SSDs and other things it's transforming this entire environment you throw virtualization into the mix it's absolutely transforming so what does that mean that means existing huge amounts of infrastructure going to be displaced and transition and one of them is back up in recovery which when you look at the tsunami in Japan to other events is critical and you know it's not talked about in the mainstream but you know there are some cool tech out there around virtualization that allows for the backup and recovery so it's a really important topic we hear a lot about it on on email and Twitter so I think it's it's critical that we


The former governor of Delta State Senator Dr. Ifanyo Kowa has said agricultural integration in education has brought traditional values into education, ensuring that culture remains the important part of the learning process in our different communities across the 25 local government areas of the state. Dr. Ifanyo Kowa made this statement at the Agboonta Maiden Conference theme, Culture, Education, and Sustainable Community Development in a cast-out local government council of Delta State. Cultural resilience through education. Cultural integration in education, traditional values into education, ensuring that cultural richness remains an integral part of our learning process. On his part, the president general of Agboonta Community Union, Elda Ndudi Agolo, has called on the governor of Delta State, right Honorable Sherif Oborewari, to construct a major road linking Agboonta to other communities, build schools, healthcare centers for people living in the community. Aliva is the best in short, it's a world-class commodity market and it's good for both roads and all sorts of constructions. So we want the government to give us dredgers, give us payloaders, and give us a dual carriage to the place. And then, Agboonta is a dorado to our administration because we are genuine. Nobody, you can see what is happening now. For the first time in unison, we do things. So for those who have, they should come, bring in their resources for investment. Thank you very much sir, thank you for your time. Inadequate government present in this community. If you see this school now, that is the only primary school in this area that are not yet fenced. If you see our community hospital, it needs to be upgraded to a general hospital. How to build up security by using the community police and the community vigilante. So we are here to talk of where we can empower them so that the security will be improved. You see what they say, all those guests, all those budget, not the get-work, not the get-work, not the do-it-get. The place where mandate deliver, who mandate deliver for hospitals, that will not be a hospital, we will not get it again. We will leave that one again. We leave everything when it's a good one, go help out for this community.


On this day of remembrance, we honor friends, family members, and loved ones who have lost their lives to the disease of addiction and give our support to those in our communities who are coping with loss or struggling with this horrible disease. As we all know, the disease of addiction does not discriminate. It affects Pennsylvanians from all walks of life. While we have achieved much, we can and should do more to address this matter that is plaguing all of our communities. We owe it to those who have lost their battle to the disease of addiction to make sure that we do everything in our power to acknowledge substance use disorder as an illness, not a flaw, and help those who are struggling with it. Together, let's remember the loved ones that we've lost, and in their honor, work to provide the best help, treatment, and support we can.


We will move to a vote, and members will be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 9513 in the name of Murdo Fraser as amended is yes, 64, no, 56, there were no abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on the five parliamentary bureau motions. Does anybody object? Good. The question is that motions 9542 to 9544, 9546 and 9547 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business in the name of Mary Gougeon on heads up for Harrier's project. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.


The 2024 EDUCAUSE Top 10 is sponsored by AT&T, Genzabar, and CDW Education. As we look ahead, higher education is a float in an ever-shifting sea of challenges, the public's lack of confidence, the ongoing student debt crisis, climate change and weather disasters, cyber security breaches, deep fakes, cultural polarization, and more. We can no longer assume that business as usual is punctuated by the occasional unforeseen bad event. Anomaly is the new normal. Today's leadership agenda must expand beyond growth and innovation to address risk and to prepare for what may be ahead. In 2024, institutional and technology leaders will focus their efforts on developing institutional resilience, which is the ability to anticipate, respond to, and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances in ways that maximize opportunities and minimize threats of unforeseen events. The EDUCAUSE 2024 Top 10 describes three dimensions of institutional resilience, mission resilience, operational resilience, and financial resilience. Mission resilience An institution's missions, most commonly education, research, and service, are enduring, but their expression and advancement must adapt to the needs and opportunities of the times. Education is the focal point of mission resilience, as evidenced by three of the 2024 Top 10. Number 3. The Enrollment Crisis Number 4. Diving Deep into Data Number 6. Meeting Students Where They Are Operational Resilience Operational resilience extends to the institution's assets and workforce, and to its planning and decision-making processes. During the pandemic, higher education overcame its reputation for slow, grudging, and incremental change. Institutional leaders can now use the pace, flexibility, and widespread collaboration that characterized pandemic-era operations as a catalyst for fostering, enduring institutional agility. Four of the 2024 Top 10 reflect this dimension. Number 1. Cybersecurity as a Core Competency Number 2. Driving to Better Decisions Number 7. Hiring Resilience And Number 10. Adapting to the Future Financial resilience Many institutions' fiscal foundations have been based on decades-long trends and tactics, enrollments, grants, investments, gifts, and capital and operating costs have had a certain range that shaped good or bad financial performance, and leaders understood the levers to pull to adapt. But outcomes today are unresponsive to the traditional levers, as illustrated by three of the 2024 Top 10. Number 5. Administrative Cost Reduction Number 8. Financial Keys to the Future Number 9. Balancing Budgets The last several years have shown us that the unthinkable can happen, and that we need more than tradition, hope, and luck to survive. We need to cultivate resilient institutions. In 2024, leaders will be using technology and data to help higher education increase its mission, operational, and financial resilience. The 2024 EDUCAUSE Top 10 is sponsored by AT&T, Genzabar, and CDW Education.


Okay, so for someone that's watching this, that might be a little confused about these ideas and is hearing or learning in college right now why intersectionality is good, right? And we mentioned the oppression of the Olympics before. Can you explain why this competing set of oppressions, or I don't even think they're real oppressions, I think they're perceived oppressions, why this is actually something that can't hold? Well, it's the whole perspective is that if you don't have a value, that's what entitles you to consideration that other people have to give money, time, sacrifice in some kind of way for you, but what it elevates is the person who can't be bothered to move. So now we have to somehow pay that they can stay alive, or it can't be bothered to educate themselves. So now we are in charge of their education. They won't look after their health, so we have to do it. They can't save for retirement, so we have to do it. And the more they won't do those things, the more we have to give them. Yes. That's the ultimate irony. So, and what you're taking then, everyone who achieves a value, and it's way bit wider than money, if they've achieved knowledge, if they've achieved any kind of success, if they've achieved happiness, they owe it to the people who haven't, you're destroying these people and you're leaving the everything is geared to these people.  If that's your whole system is geared to that, and this is what is the American revolution is we're creating a system that's geared to the person who's not at all like that, we're geared to the ambitious person. It's not you have to have money or whatever, but you have to be willing to work and choose and think, and if you're doing that, here's a system in which you can thrive. And there's two really competing visions of who you're designing the system for. Right. And in a sense, intersectionality is inevitable. Once you accept a moral code in which those who have ability or have education or have money, oh, morally that's a moral duty to sacrifice for those who don't, because then those who don't are now going to compete for these resources, and they can compete based on what's standard by how miserable they are. And the more miserable they can prove to the world they are, the more deserving they become, the more, so it's a whole moral code based on need. Whereas the founding of this country was a political system created to make possible the achievement of virtue, the achievement of success. It was, if you're not going to work hard, if you're not going to strive, you can go back to Europe in a sense. It was an implicit assumption. And indeed a lot of people did go back to Europe, a lot of the immigrants who came, because they couldn't make it. But the idea is this is a system geared towards the rational, the productive, the ambitious, the honest, the person who wants to take responsibility for their life and achieve something. And we've turned that completely upside down, and now we're gearing the political system, and this is why the welfare state is so destructive, because it creates this mentality. This is why I think the New Deal was the beginning of this politically, because it creates this mentality of, oh, you're in need? Well, it's our duty now to help you, but he's more in need. What do we do now? And of course, the need expands, and it ever grows, and there's always more people in need. And you can get to a point where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the other day, a society that creates billionaires, or allows billionaires to come into existence as an immoral society. And it's exact opposite. A society that allows people free, so that some people, because of their talents and skill and hard work and ability to create value, become billionaires, that's a great, exciting society. She also thinks we have 12 years left on her, thanks to climate change. We'll talk in 12 years. We'll discuss that in 12 years. I want to add just one point, because I think this distinction is really important. The issue is not that what about the few people who literally can't take care of themselves? They might have some Alzheimer's or something like that. There are people like that. They're a relatively small number. The issue is, who cares about these people? Yeah, people who are making something of their lives, you'll take care of a relative who has Alzheimer's. But what do you do for the true outlier cases? I don't want to spend too much time talking about it, but I think that would be one of the criticisms.  What does a functioning society do about them? Those really marginal occasions. I think a functioning society at the sort of individual level, if it's your parents or whatever you... That's the ideal version. And then the wider version is, you don't... These people, it's unfortunate what's happened to them. There would be charity for these kinds of people. This is why the distinction is so important. If you see for no fault of his own, he's in a really tough situation, either permanently like Alzheimer's, or just he's lost his job and he's having trouble. He's trying to find another job, having trouble. So you help him out for six months or so. There would be all kinds of organizations would do that. And you're looking at there as human beings with real lives and potential, versus the people who don't want to take care of themselves and choose not to. And this is the impression, Olympics is not, all of a sudden we've got all these Alzheimer's people. It's all of a sudden we've got all these people who, oh, okay. So if I say that I'm in need, that gives me a claim to everything. So I don't have to exert any effort. And it's the systems being geared to those people. And what you saw in the 19th century into the 20th with the progressive, and this was deliberate, was that you cannot talk about the deserving and undeserving poor. And that's how it used to be conceptualized. There's poor people. Yeah, they don't deserve their fate. And we're going to help them out. And there's poor people who drink their lives away and so on. And what they have to learn is that choice is wrong. And you don't learn that by bailing them out and so on. So there was the deserving poor, deserving of charity, and undeserving. And the progressive said, this is a moral abomination to make that distinction. There's just the poor. And so now you feel like, oh, so if you say you're not going to help the poor, you're not going to help this guy with Alzheimer's are met? No. But you have to distinguish those two. And there's all kinds of push that you can't make that decision. It's really hard, though, to deprogram people from believing that victimhood is virtue, though, right? I mean, people have been so infected with this. Just a quick anecdotal example is when I was at University of New Hampshire, and all these kids are screaming at me, and one girl screams something to me. I could walk out of here and be shot. And I thought, this is actually crazy. You're in New Hampshire. You're at the University of New Hampshire. You keep telling me how oppressed you are, even though you're at a wonderful school in a very safe area and all that. But she needed this idea that it's possible she could walk outside and be shot. I don't know why she thought she might be shot, whether it was her skin color or whatever it was. But I could see how pervasive it was. The need for something horrible could just come around the corner and knit me. But you see that in Alexandria Cortez with the 12 years, right? You know, so when you take ideas out of it, it's the same concept. It's the same concept. Fear is an amazing motivator when you're taking ideas out of the equation, when people are not thinking, you're trying to manipulate people's emotions, scare them. And you're seeing this on the right with immigration. It's about elevating fear and then driving people to act based on that fear. So yes, people are fearful, irrationally fearful. They don't think about the facts.  Am I really oppressed?  You tell them they don't have control of their life.  So I mean, if I knew I had no free world, I'd be afraid. I don't know what that even means because I can't even contemplate not thinking I'd have free world. But I'd be afraid because how do I know what's going to happen next?  That is a recipe for fear and what you're seeing among these young people and what is so sad about it about these kids in New Hampshire is how afraid they are. When I look at the environmentalists and the world, and I see these young kids who really believe this, who are bought into this doom and gloom. I think what a waste, right? How sad is it that people are growing up in an environment where they think the actions that they're taking are going to destroy the planet, they're going to destroy their lives, and that they can't think themselves out of this. So it's challenging, but it goes back to what they need to be taught. They need to be taught. They do have control over their life. They need to be taught that they can't think. They need to be taught the facts. We need to elevate that discussion back to the area of ideas and free will and control and choices. This is why I think objectivism is so important for the sort of the error we're in or the cultural point. Because I think of it as it's the philosophy that the enlightenment deserved, but didn't get. The objective of the Imran's theory is it's pro-reason, it's pro-science, it's pro-technology, it's pro-the individual, it's pro-capitalism. It views the 19th century as this was the pinnacle of freeing man in the broadest sense. You see such tremendous achievement in the 19th century. It's an end of war, of world war. You only get that back into the 20th century. I think the most unusual of all, it's pro-the pursuit of happiness. How do you get people out of this that they view everything as about need? You have to articulate a positive vision. It's important not only about reason and science and technology, but a moral vision that what you should be striving for. When we look at people, how we should distinguish between good and evil, it's who is pursuing their own happiness and who is not. To resurrect that moral idea and to give it a real underpinning in philosophy, that's what she was about. I think she thought of herself as I'm bringing a new moral perspective that has never really fully existed. This is what we need. You need the positive. There's no way to undercut intersectionality. I think this is part of the problem with a lot of the discussion going on today, while accepting the moral code that made intersectionality possible in the first place. I see a lot of intellectuals who are what meaning, who see the evil in intersectionality, but can't really fight it because they're advocating for another form of altruism, another form of the sacrifice of the individual to some other group, unless you have a real new conception of morality, an alternative conception of morality which Rand provides, of the individual pursuing their own values, pursuing their own life, pursuing their own happiness, that is the only alternative to the dead end that is tribalism and intersectionality.


Let me complete that question which was asked by Jawaharlal Institute of Technology. So I am going over there. See the question was about supersaturation. The question asked was supersaturation in the nozzle as steam or vapor expands isentropically. But supersaturation is the phenomena when a change of phase if it does not occur or does not commence exactly at the saturation line. So supersaturation is generally general process which may occur when the liquid tries to become a solid, solid tries to become a liquid, liquid tries to evaporate or a vapor tries to condense. Let us look at the case of a nozzle. When steam expands in a nozzle, I am showing a converging diverging nozzle. You have a high pressure P0 and it goes to a low pressure P1. And the process is almost isentropic or in the ideal case it is isentropic. In a real case, it is adiabatic, may not be reversed, it is almost exactly adiabatic. Now if you take say the HS diagram, this is the dry saturated vapor line. Let us say that we have our, this is our P0, P0 T0, so this would be assumed superheated. The phenomena of supersaturation would occur when superheated steam expands and let us assume isentropic expansion and let us say this is P1, so it will expand here. Now as the flow moves, this is the point where it intersects the x equal to one line. And if you look up the pressure here, may be this is the pressure at which it continues. But condensation does not exactly start here, condensation gets delayed and the vapor behaves as if it is superheated for some time beyond this. So although this is, these are the various states showing lower and lower dryness fraction, the steam remains dry and the state is not given by our steam tables of the HS diagram. The state is given as if the superheated states are extended or extrapolated into the two phase zone, that is supersaturation. In principle there is no basic theoretical limit for supersaturation but the flow becomes unstable and any small trigger, small roughness on the wall which causes secondary flow presents of a small impurity, a small speck of dust or for some reason if there is a small, very small level droplet that is sufficient to trigger the process of condensation. And when that happens, there is supersaturation, so you get into a supersaturated state and then there is some sort of a trigger which suddenly, sudden change to the expected state. This expected state if you see the detail usually leads to a loss in efficiency and the isentropic efficiency of the nozzle reduces if it goes through supersaturation. If you want more technical details on this, I refer you to a book by Moore and C. A. Verding. I think the title is two phase flow in turbines and separator. So this is recommended reading particularly for the supersaturation which occurs in steam nozzles. Although they talk of two phase flow, it is essentially the two phase flow of steam water that they are talking about. It is difficult to demonstrate in a laboratory the supersaturation but something which I recommend if you want to show the supersaturated state, I recommend you do the following simple experiment and I am sure you will succeed if not in the first attempt, in the second or definitely in the third attempt. What one should do is take a glass or a beaker, clean it absolutely neatly to the extent possible. Then take a chilled cold drink. A cola I find is better for some reason, something like your favorite cola whatever you decide and pour it in this almost up to the rim. Then cover it up with a dish and put it in the freezer. For some reason I find the older type of freezers evaporated directly on the freezer liner is better rather than the newer type of freezers or the frost free type of freezers and leave it undisturbed. See to it that the refrigerator is otherwise clean, the freezer door is not opened and closed unnecessarily and the refrigerator the freezer does not vibrate. You will find that after 3-4 hours it remains still chilled when you expect it to be frozen and if you find it still chilled in a good freezer in all probability what you have is a super saturated liquid state of that cold drink and all that you have to do is take a spoon, scrape off from the wall of the freezer I tell you should not be a frost free freezer.  It does not form a single crystal it is a collection of crystals and that happens because when it freezes the whatever is the gas used for aeration typically carbon dioxide tries to come out and cracks the whole thing but you will notice that and that is a demonstration because if it were to freeze on its own it will already be in solid and if it is not in solid it is still in liquid then what is the reason for a small piece of solid phase triggering that freezing. Do this experiment this is a very recommended experiment and the very simplest and safe experiment and of course you wait a few more minutes keep the glass outside under a fan it will melt and then you can enjoy your cold drink over to you. Sir does there exist any qualitative difference between heat and work because your discussion you did not ask about anything between heat and work qualitative difference. Qualitative difference well if you compare heat and work work I can say it is something like a mechanical phenomena can always be reduced to the rays of a wave that is the definition. So whether you have work and heat this can be shown equivalent to rays of a weight whereas this is not so both are energy in transit between systems system A and system B and our first law helps us define or using first law we have defined heat as energy in transit between system which is not of the work kind is heat. So not of the W type that is it in fact a question was asked whether this energy in transit has to be only work type or of the heat type or is there a third kind and the answer to that is we have not discovered or seen a hint of any third kind of interaction. So both are energies in transit between systems so we cannot say the work contained in a system or the heat content of a system or heat contained in a system. What is contained in a system is only its energy in various forms we call thermal internal energy we should not really call it thermal we should just call it internal energy it is the historical name which still continues and perhaps this is the only difference which I can talk about work and heat. Of course heat has a special status because in the second law the heat interaction multiplied by 1 over T it shown to be equal to delta S in the limiting case where the process is reversing. So work does not appear in the second law at all directly whereas heat appears directly okay I suppose that explains it. Work is termed as high grade energy and heat is termed as low grade energy. Yes but that is because perhaps we are mechanical engineers and we started worrying about levers and rising weights and using water to create power for us. So anything which is almost directly and almost completely convertible to power we thought it to be high grade and since we know that heat is associated with a temperature the so called grade of heat increases as the temperature of the source increases. In the morning we noticed that the if there is a heat interaction Q1 at a temperature T1 the maximum you can work you can extract out of it is Q into 1 minus T0 by T1 that is the reason why heat is called low grade energy and work is called high grade energy but these are our definitions they themselves have not defined themselves as high grade and low grade. There are two different types of interactions and neither work nor heat are energies by themselves they are energies in transit. So we should be careful when you say work is high grade energy and heat is low grade energy all that we can say is work perhaps is one way of transfer of energy from one system to another where a complete transfer at the receiving end into work is possible because when you transfer work you are directly giving work we are transferring heat you are giving it at some temperature work is not associated with any temperature. So if the recipient is not at the receiving temperature and the recipient has to convert it into work then the recipient will say that look I have only the environment temperature to work with you are giving me something at a temperature higher than environment so I can only convert part of that into work. So what is not converted you can say is a thermodynamic stacks of conversion of heat into work and again you will notice that if you provide that heat at the room temperature itself then you can say that it is an energy of no value because it just cannot be converted into work. One of my professors you say used to tell us that anything which is available and cannot be converted to anything useful is work less so he said heat at ambient temperature is a work less form of energy and that is his way of looking at things that is not what is defined in thermodynamics all these terms are something which we define over to you. Sir, last question is this sir this is about entropy yes entropy comes only when there exist inequality in clauses statement and number two it only shows thus the process between any two states is reversible or irreversible. In a way yes entropy is process by which you can determine how good a process is comparing that by dq by t actually we write although we write the second law as in differential form as say ds must be equal to or greater than or equal to dq by t actually this is a defined redefine form using entropy of this form dq by t for a reversible process element must be greater than dq by t for a general or irreversible process element. What the clauses in equality in its equality form allows us to do is we can show that this particular form is an exact differential so we define it as a change in property. So ds is nothing but a short form of dq by t for a reversible process element just the way we can say is dE is nothing but a short form for minus dw adiabatic for a process element where that process element has to be adiabatic that is it.


Is grain fed beef really poison? Depends on what you mean. If you're talking about conventional feedlot American beef, absolutely poison. But if you're talking about that farmer that supplements his grass-fed cow with some high-quality organic grain, two completely different things. The evil here is conventional agriculture, things that have gone astray with our modern food system. We're going to focus on several aspects of conventional farming today. If you haven't seen my video, The Life of a Feedlot Cow, definitely check that out. And I also did a video titled, Grain Fed Beef Will Make You Fat and Flabby, where I spoke about estrogenic herbicides such as atrazine. I won't be talking about atrazine today. However, I did have someone with first-hand experience reach out to me that has seen this ugly side of modern agriculture. And there are common procedures in these feedlot beef operations that result in tortured animals and poisonous meat. First we have dehorning and tail docking. Horns are removed from all animals to prevent injury to others and make handling easier. This very stressful process involves sawing or chopping off the horns and then cordurizing the wound to prevent excess blood loss. Dehorning is used to prevent cattle from getting their tail stuck between the floors of the barn. It's very painful and commonly causes infection at the docking site. Second is antibiotics. Your meat that's labeled antibiotic-free simply means that the levels of antibiotics at the time of slaughter was deemed reasonable. How's that sound? Many different forms of antibiotics are injected into the neck of the animal if they are deemed to be sick or as a preventative measure for shipping fever, which is a range of diseases typically triggered by shipping stress. Most feedlots mass-treat their animals, which means giving antibiotics to all cattle upon arrival at the feedlot. These antibiotics are closely related to the ones used for human purposes. Feed-grade antibiotics such as chlor-tetrocycline, osky-tetrocycline, and sulfamethazine are added to the feed to reduce instances of disease and promote overall growth. Certain regulations require veterinarians to write case-by-case prescriptions, but most veterinarians don't even inspect the cattle and will simply write the prescription at the request of the feedlot. Cases of antibiotic-resistant bacteria continue to increase and feedlots are using more powerful drugs every year to combat the same infections. The reason people are getting sick from salmonella and E. coli isn't that those bacteria are inherently harmful, it's that once you put them in this toxic feedlot environment, they become powerful and antibiotic-resistant, therefore can now harm humans. We also have ionophores, which are antibiotics that are essentially given the classification of medically unimportant, therefore they are not regulated. Ionophores are used to improve feed efficiency and prevent certain parasites. Cattle receive these drugs from the moment they enter the feedlot until the day they leave. The most commonly used ionophore is rhumensin, which is made by Ilanko. Third, we have growth promotants. Estrogenic implants containing estradiol and trend-blown acetate are given to cattle up to four times throughout their lives. These change the hormonal profile of cattle, causing them to eat more and gain additional weight. This also has a negative impact on meat quality, explaining some of the drastic differences between feedlot and local beef. Beta-agonists are another type of growth promotant, which cause the animal to prioritize muscle growth over fat deposition within the carcass. This results in more lean body mass and less subcutaneous and intramuscular fat tissue. This is like a bodybuilder using steroids on a McDonald's diet. It's preventing the negative health effects through artificial means. Fourth are dewormers, which are used extensively on all feedlot animals. Many different types of dewormers are mixed and matched due to parasite resistance buildup of older drugs. Most of these have an extremely short withdrawal time, which leaves a high amount of these drugs remaining in the tissues. Fifth is vaccines, something I get asked a lot about. Cattle are given up to 15 different vaccines throughout their lives. All of these vaccines contain heavy metals and other toxic carriers that cause a severe inflammatory and immune response within the body. Cattle frequently go into anaphylactic shock upon injection from the heavy metals and vaccine endotoxin resulting in death. These vaccines are administered with needles which cause abscesses and infections at the injection site, severely damaging tissue. Not pretty, as me. Up sixth, we have vitamin and mineral injections. Many of these cattle being deficient in nutrients essential to health. The vitamin B complex is an injection used to treat neurological issues, sometimes called brainers. Brainers are the result of a high grain and high energy diet, depleting the B vitamin stores of the animal, leading it to a quick neurological degeneration and death. Selenium deficiencies are common in young calves which cause white muscle disease. This is due to the mother not having enough fresh green grass prior to giving birth. Vitamins A, E and D are given as injections to reduce the oxidative stress the cattle are suffering due to incorrect diet and high stress living. Many animals are injected with broad spectrum vitamin and mineral supplements upon arrival in order for them to have the immune capacity to handle vaccine stimulus. Seventh is foot baths. There is a new disease called hairy wheel wart which is an infection causing severe swelling, pain and gradual rotting of the hooves of the cattle. There is no effective treatment preventing this so they have to use a formaldehyde bath which burns the infection as well as part of the hoof. However, it will return in one to two months after this bath so they have to do it on a monthly basis.  Last we have veterinary kickbacks. Each pharmaceutical company has incentive programs for both producers and veterinarians to use their products. These programs end up being very profitable for veterinarians and can sometimes be up to 70% of their total yearly profit.  Despicable. Each vet clinic gets a different level of kickback depending on the volume they buy and that most certainly makes a difference in deciding which products to use on a farm. With pharmaceuticals making up the vast majority of the vets paycheck, they are very much incentivized to push these products onto the producers they work with. Many times vets will recommend using expensive antibiotics even when it may not be necessary. Most pharmaceutical companies will even send their own sales reps directly to producers to sell them on products without a vets input. This whole scenario is really scary. Not only do you realize what's being done to these animals, how they're being treated, this occurs across all fields of conventional agriculture. Whether it's pork, poultry, how your vegetables are being grown, how your grains are being grown. There's all this cruel despicable poison and stuff that's going on in our food supply and what makes it even worse is the people in charge have so much money, so much control of the infrastructure, it's bad. When you start supporting cornivores or really anyone, this is the message that they're preventing. When they say, eat the beef you like and can afford and they're trying to sound nice and they're trying to sound like, oh, you're approved for buying expensive grass-fed beef. Do you see what they're supporting? Do you understand what goes into these feedlot conventional beef operations? This is pure evil. Yesterday we spoke about those Harvard scientists supporting age old beliefs of genital mutilation in some capacity. The face value of what these people are portraying, oh, it's affordable, it's what people need to eat. You all do great on an all-beef cornivore diet.  Listen, guys, I understand not everyone can afford to go to local farms and buy grass-fed beef, but if you can only afford to spend two or three dollars a pound on conventional ground feedlot beef every day, go to the local Asian market, go to your grocery store, look for wild squat fatty fish. That's affordable. It's in that two to four dollar a pound range.  Don't consume two to three pounds of estrogenic feedlot beef per day. Let's be smart about this. If you're in a developmental stage of life, a young person, a child, a toddler, that's where nutrition is incredibly important. And if you can't afford to put money in the most important thing in your life, I don't know what to tell you. You need to straighten your priorities. That's why on Frankie's Free Range Meat, we are literally the most affordable grass-fed beef pervader online. That's also why I'm still driving the 2001 Ford Taurus. And for those of you saying, oh, Frankie is just trying to sell his grass-fed beef. Guys, I'm from New York City. We're the grain-fed steakhouse capital of the world. Peter Luger's, Keen's, Gallagher's. Like grain, I could have sold so much, I could have made so much money off of feedlot steak. It's unbelievable. I wish I would have done that because, I mean, honestly, at this point, like I'm getting crucified by everyone else for spreading a message I truly believe in. All I can really do is continue to share my message. So guys, please like the video, subscribe, hit that bell icon above all. Please share the video. If you do want to support me further, check out my book, The Ancestral Indigenous Diet, down in the description below. Thanks again for joining me, guys. Enjoy the rest of your day.