So, we're here to talk about IoT and the IoT Challenge. I'll explain along the presentation what I mean about IoT Challenge. But suffice to say, I don't believe that what we have today is what IoT should be. It should be quite different from what it is today. But before that, let me just introduce myself quickly. That is me working with high technology in 1982. So, my name is Tiago Maciera. I work for the open source technology center of Intel. I work in Portland, Oregon, the United States. I've been doing open source for the last 15 years. A little more actually than that. And I've been involved interestingly with networking ever since I started with open source. So, my story with open source starts way back in 1999 when I was applying for an internship. And they actually asked me, what do you want to do? So, I started thinking, looking at projects that were happening, I decided out of the blue, IPv6. So, by the way, I'm giving a session tomorrow on IPv6. One thing led to the other, I ended up working at Intel. And two years ago, we looked into what existed for IoT, what frameworks existed, and we did not find that there was anything that actually met our needs. So, we started our own. And that brought me back into networking and IPv6. So, what we're using in IoTivity and OCF, which I'll get to, is all based on standard technologies including IPv6. So, it's interesting that after a long while, I mean, I always kept up to date and I have IPv6 connection at home, that knowledge actually became useful when we're talking about how to do multicasting, how to do discovery, how to do connectivity, what information do we get from other devices. All of that knowledge of networking actually came in useful. It's not the only thing I do. I'm also maintaining a couple of other projects in open source, but for the past two years I've been involved. Like I said, 90% of my time has been IoT. So, without further ado, let's talk about the big news, which I don't know if you're following the IoT segment, you might have seen this. If you have not, let me explain to you. The All Seen Alliance is a Linux Foundation cooperative project. The Open Connectivity Foundation is a separate entity, but sponsors another Linux Foundation project called the IoTivity project. So, and what happened as of yesterday is that these two entities decided to join forces. They decided to merge and come together with a single roadmap for creating the IoT solution for the future. And that's the one I'm going to be talking about here. It's the one we've been working on the OCF for a while, but it is the one now that we all agreed. This is actually the technology that we combined forces will believe will take us for the next 10, 15 years, hopefully more. It consists of basically three pillars. One of them is the specification. So we're here at the Linux, an embedded Linux conference. We're talking about open source. Yes, we have source, but we need the specification. The reason for that is that we need to be able to say this is how it should work. There is a way to do things that if you want to reimplement from scratch, you're allowed to. You don't have to use our source code. So if you're, for example, a hardware manufacturer, let's say you're buying or designing an FPGA, something specific to put all of this communication we've designed into hardware. Well, you can because you don't have to use our source code, which was written for regular operating systems. You can just look at the specification, look at how it's done, and implement your own functionality. And the same way, you can use the source code without having to be a member and pass certification.  If you do, and that's the last pillar there, you get a number of benefits of passing certification. That's a goal of interoperability. We want not just that you use our software and you read our specifications. We want to give the guarantee to the users that this device works with that device. It's a very simple scenario. Imagine, for example, you buy smart light bulbs. Do I have to buy controllers from the same brand? No. I mean, I have to be able to replace my light bulbs with a different one or buy a controller from a different device. And my TV from a different manufacturer from the light bulbs. So we are trying to create an interoperability between these different technologies, these different manufacturers by these three pillars. So again, a specific specification which you can read and which you can implement towards. And if you're a member of the Open Connectivity Foundation, you get a number of intellectual property benefits by implementing this. An open source project that is developed as open source that you can participate in and implement on your own project and your own devices and, finally, pass certification. Our vision is to create something that, like I just mentioned, is an open, published online specification which everybody can read. The draft standards are, for the moment, only for members. We've been discussing whether we should publish draft standards, for example, on GitHub and people can read as we develop them. This hasn't happened. It's free. The reference implementation is free and open source. The standard is published under reasonable nondiscriminatory with zero royalty. So it is free. Now, membership costs, but because we have costs and if you're going to certify a device, it does take somebody time to test everything. But plans are reasonable. It's seamless. It should work from any device, big or small. We don't care which technology you're using. IPv4 and IPv6 right now. There's been some discussion on whether we should use non-IP technologies. That's an open debate because we're seeing IP coming to everything. So maybe the problem will solve itself. It's fair and accessible, just like I mentioned. It's open source. Anybody with a merit can participate. We're doing with the large backing of companies and across the industry. So we have representatives of electronics, of chipset manufacturers that I can tell. We have cable operators, telecom operators. We have educational institutions. It's actually easier if I just show a bunch of logos for you. These are just the top members, Diamond and Platinum. As of this morning, we have more than 230 members. So please look at the webpage for the full list. We also have liaison agreements with a number of other organizations that are operating in an area similar to ours, so an IoT or IoT related. As a good example, I can point at the Thread Group, which is implementing a technology for mesh low power networking, specifically meant for smart home. Let me just point out as well the slides will be available online. So you can take a picture of me as well. There will be a video, but if you just want to look at them later, and everything is broken, you blame Philip. But the slides will be available online later. So you don't have to. So I was talking about the Thread Group. They are creating a low power mesh network based on IPv6 and the IEEE 802.15.4. And what they looked at was like, great, we got a network. What are we going to transport on this thing? Who's going to use it? And we are on the other side. We have a use, we need a network. Why don't we work together? And so we do. We created this liaison agreement where we exchange a bit of technology. We have a couple of companies that are members of both. And then we realized, hey, we actually need to do some technology exchange. So bringing a device onto your network, there's more than one step involved. And we have a program so that it's seamless when you integrate your device onto the Thread network it automatically gets the information for the OCF network. I'm going to come back into that. So that's all I'm going to do about the non-technical. If you want to hear more about the foundation, if you want to hear more about the merger that just happened, you can come to the OCF booth on the upper floor. We'll be happy to talk to you. The rest I'm going to talk about right now is technical. So thank you for putting up with the non-technical. Let's get technical now. I'm happy to take questions. This is a little complex. But I'm happy to work with you. And what I mentioned in the beginning about the challenge of IoT is this. Today we do not have IoT. Let me explain what I mean. I will use a concrete example. I bought these smart AC for my house. It's not the Nest. I just bought something. It came with a thing that comes on Wi-Fi, which is great. How do I control it? It comes with an app for my phone. And then somebody goes and buys those night-sit mood light bulbs. How do they work? Another app. So what you do have today is not IoT. It's not the Internet of Things, or even some people call it the Internet of Everything. What we have is isolated islands of everything. You have a type of device that does something smart, thankfully, and hopefully the smart device is smarter than the dumb device, which is not a guarantee. Let me tell you that.  So you have smart devices that do something, but they don't talk to the other device. If I buy a smart microwave, I want my smart microwave to turn the lights in the dining room on when the dinner is ready. Who's going to program that? The only way this is going to work is if we have a common technology for this. And this is what we're trying to solve. Let's create a common technology stack so that the multiple devices underneath can be reached. Starts with a problem of transport, and this is what we're seeing here in this picture. So if you're up there writing your application and you're trying to reach devices that are down here, some of them are Wi-Fi, some of them are Bluetooth, some of them are going to be on ZigBey and Z-Wave. How do you do that? Each device is going to work differently. So if I buy two different light bulbs, mood light bulbs, they're going to have a different protocol. What we're trying to do is create one common connectivity framework so that you can find and communicate with each of those devices securely, the set of data models that explain what each device is. For a long time, we're going to have the end of the picture there, and I probably should reduce the font size because this looks horrible. I think this happened after I just plugged the monitor and the fonts didn't work. So on the other side, what you're going to have is for a time there will be legacy devices. So there are a number of devices coming today which have, for example, Z-Wave. They have a full stack up and down, discovery and communication and describing the device. What we're going to do is create plugins, a translation layer, so that if you're programming up here, you can talk to them as if they were local. You can see that the legs here have different sizes. That's because some technologies allow more information than the other. The example which, unfortunately, the name is hidden behind here, this was supposed to be Six Low Pan. So it doesn't have any way for us to describe what a device is, but Bluetooth on the other hand has a much higher stack because Bluetooth already comes with a way to describe certain devices. So if I come to my car, my phone automatically starts playing music because it detects as a music player and the car is a loudspeaker. It's a very mobile and big and expensive loudspeaker, but yes, what we need is to figure out, hey, I want to talk to all of these in one way. Our stack is, we selected it to be very based on standard technologies. We don't want to reinvent the wheel. We want to make things simpler and use what is proven. Some of them are not proven because they're so new that we need to prove them ourselves. So as an example, a very important example is, we're not using TCP.  How does that work? We're using only UDP. The reason why we're using only UDP is so that we can run on very tiny devices. So a colleague of mine is going to talk about this later. And if you were on the other session right here about Zephyr, they would be telling you, hey, we have an UDP stack, but our TCP one, I probably don't want to run it. Not that it's bad, it's just big. And by big, I mean 200 kilobytes. We want to run this on very tiny devices. I mentioned FPGAs before. So we're using, based on UDP alone, so you can see how this builds up, right? We can run over Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi, or 6-Low Pan. We built with UDP. We have session encryption, or the encryption is already here, right? So built in from the scratch. We have DTLS. No device is allowed to pass certification without having security. Now, we don't do the hardening, right? Left on the exercise for the reader. So if you're my reader here, you have to harden your device against other vectors of attack. But the moment that you bring it to certification, we're going to test, hey, do I enter the encryption? No, fail, forget, can go home. We have a security resource management from the beginning. So every device comes with an ability to set a number of access control lists. So can this resource be reached or not? I can give you an example of a door lock. A door lock in my house, the adults can open and close. That's fine, but not the kids. So if the kid is represented by the phone they have in their pocket, or a dongle, or whatever, or a fingerprint reader, well, the ACL says no, you're not allowed to open the door. Right? Only an adult can allow you to go outside and play or open for strangers coming in. So this kind of functionality is built in from the scratch, and I have to tell you, we're already thinking of the next one. We're not happy with the one we have. It works, yes. We want to get better. And you can build clients and servers. I'm not going to get much into the intermediary that's basically a client and server at the same time that passes information along. And you're going to add your own resources on top. So what are the resources? I'm going to get into the next two slides. We adopted a restful model. So what does it mean to be restful? What does it mean to use rest? For us, it means that we are much more able to grow, scale, and be native with cloud technologies. These, again, what I said before, these are proven technologies. We know how they work. We didn't use HTTP. Remember, I said we're not using TCP. Instead, what we're using is a protocol very similar to HTTP, but it is binary and UDP-based. It's called co-app. It was in the previous slide. It's not something we invented. It existed from the ITF, the Internet Engineering Task Force. You can find the protocol described on RFC. Same thing. We're using something very similar to JSON, but not JSON, because it's binary. So we're using C-board, concise binary object representation. Again, you can read the RFC. We're just using these technologies. The interaction is very simple. A client initiates a connection. It usually starts with a discovery. Who's there? Or who's a toaster here? And you get a reply saying, hey, I'm a toaster. Or in the case of security says, I might be a toaster, but I won't tell you until you open a secure connection to me. We've been having discussions. Should some devices reply randomly? I might be a toaster, but I know I'm not. So you have TVs replying, yeah, maybe, just to throw an attacker off. But anyway, I digress. The server replies. It hosts a resource. The interaction is do something for me, sends a response, and provides a service. It's simple. A resource, a device, let's look into inside of one. A physical device can contain multiple logical devices. Why would anyone want to do that? I don't know, but the point is I don't want to constrain you. But think of more simply, I have a much more capable device like my phone, and I have multiple applications running. As simple as that. But it could be for security separation. Some devices are more critical than others, so they run on different processes. Or it could be just the way that we developed things because this one needs to access some hardware, that one doesn't. I don't know. Each device comes with a couple of mandatory resources and a couple of these resources that are optional. Plus your own resources explaining what they are. They come with a description of what they are, so you can see, for example, that this one is described by manufacturer MNMM, which is manufacturer name. There's one M too many. Where's the second M in manufacturer? Anyway, so apparently our guys like a lot of consonants, but that's the name of the... I'm not joking. It's actually the spec. It says MNMM. It's manufacturer name. I don't know where the extra M comes from. It describes us, for example, a Samsung device. Why would that be? Well, if I want to find all of my Samsung devices at home, I might want to be able to manage them with a special interface that allows me to do upgrades. That's an example. This one describes each logical device and the res is a resolution. It's where everything starts. So I ask to all of the devices, ask for their res and say, who's a toaster? They reply. Looking into my own devices. So, for example, for industry, we're going to have... Hi, Richard. Good to see you. A light bulb, and by the way, question that comes up often, how many IoT engineers do you need to replace a light bulb? Because we keep talking about light bulbs. The answer is none. It's a hardware problem. We do software. A light bulb, for example, is described by the spec as a device that has a couple of mandatory things, like I showed you before, that it has, at least, and you can see their mandatory, at least a binary switch on and off.  But it has a number of optional resources that it can add that are standardized. So if my light bulb can do brightness, great, I just add a brightness resource. If my light bulb can change color, I add the color resource. A light bulb can do, I don't know, set a temperature, might as well. I mean, yes, you can do temperature of the white. Why not? So you can do cool white, warm white. If it has a party mode, that's not standardized. So what do I do then? Well, I create my own resource. Remember, look at this. This is actually made by strings. I can just create my own for my own company. I can create party mode light bulb and just add it there. How did we get here? So let me just take a step back and talk about how devices get onto your network. And this is important because this is the root of all security. This is called the ownership transfer protocol. When you buy a device, it comes in an unowned state. It means I'm ready to accept ownership. You can put it back on an unowned state and factory wipe and give it to somebody else. Or it comes with a button on the button. I don't know. But it comes in an unowned state. It starts up. I'm not going to get into the details of how. This you can read on the spec. It starts up, finds the onboarding tool, which can be an app on my phone. It can be an application on my laptop. It could be a remote application on my router, which I access via the cloud. I don't know. But the point is there is a tool, which we're also developing, called the onboarding tool. It will discover that new device that it's willing, that was in an unowned state. So it confirms the device is in an unowned state, claims it, now it's mine. It does that by passing along the information about, for example, on Wi-Fi that's not the case because you have to actually get into Wi-Fi before you get the information. But on Thread Network, for example, you find the device before it joins your network, before it joins the mesh. And it joins it by receiving via this encrypted channel now, it receives the information of how to join your mesh network. And at the same time, it gets the certificate, so on all the provisioning data, to join the OCF network on top. So only devices that went through this will get the necessary encryption keys and certificate that will validate it against all other devices. And at the same time, they get a set of ACLs. So you can program your onboarding tool to always restrict, nobody can access it but me, so only admin can set information on it. A very good example is the resource on each device that controls ACLs needs to be made accessible only by the admin. But at that point, you can also control, yeah, yeah. This device actually belongs in the upstairs bedroom, so I'm going to add some information to it. I can add some description at the moment that I join onto my network. I can put into groups. I'm going to get into groups in a minute. Next slide, actually. So all of this starts from the beginning. We've developed the onboarding transfer protocol. The onboarding, yeah. To be secure, no man in the middle of possibility. Sometimes that's a little cumbersome because of the way we do things, so we also have the JustWorks model, right? It's just called JustWorks.  It, depending on how long you take, it might be successful to attack. But there are ways to make sure that whenever you bring something onto your network, it is secure. Now, I don't want to maybe do one at a time. I might be able to provision them before they ship. So if I'm doing an industrial setting, so if I want to install 100 of these new devices onto my new network in my office, for example, which is a large place, I can do the transfer before, bring the device in. So, for example, pre-provision them with the information they need. I mentioned groups. Let me just explain where the groups are. So we're now talking about the data models. So we started from the bottom. So remember I said before, you have a binary switch. A light bulb is a binary switch. Well, microwaves also have a binary switch. A thermostat has a binary switch, right? So we started from common elements that apply to everything. Temperature is another one. Remember we talked about the warm light and cold light. I can have a temperature resource, which is a thermomester, or a thermostat. And they're different because one is a reading, the other is a setting. So all of these resources are described at the bottom level, the elementary resource of them, how they actually are, and you build on top of them.  It has a temperature reading and a temperature setting, right? So the temperature setting is the one on the far right because it's just something I set. I have a thermometer which has a temperature reading. But I could have an extra device which is just a thermometer which I can't turn on and off and I can't change its temperature, at least not programmatically like this, right? I can bring a flame to it, that's different. So we build these things from the bottom and the technology that allows us to group them together also allows us to group a series of these into larger, more logical information. So I can, for example, define that all devices, my house belongs to my house. I can call them upstairs bread room or kitchen, right? I'm sorry, I can do queries like give me all the kitchen lights. And if I have a light switch, the light switch controls the lights in that group. So there I have six buttons, right? Some of them turn this light on, some of them those, some of them the other types of lights. So that programming, right, we can make by using groups, collections of elements, collections of groups, and I can create groups of groups and so on. So that same technology. Remember, we're just building stuff. There's nothing innovative here. No, there is, all this putting together. And all of these data models, they are in this website, oneiota.org. You can go there. You have to accept the terms of use, the moment that you log in the first time. But this site is both a repository of data models in, again, Rammel and Jason. This is Jason Schema, sorry. These are standard technologies. And an IDE to develop them. So we are using it to develop our own. The next set, industrial, we're looking into how you describe, I don't know, an asynchronous motor. But you can go and add your own. You have a device that we hadn't thought of. You can contribute there. Or you have a device that has temperature, for example. But it's different from ours. So you can actually go there and describe temperature in a different way. In this other technology, like Z-Wave or AllJoin, it's described this way. We don't call it temperature. We call it something different. And instead of measuring in Celsius, we measure it in Millicelvin because it's integer. You can describe all the values. It's just an integer. Millicelvin, no floating point. I suggested this to OCF. They didn't like it. I'm not kidding. I did suggest like, are you crazy? Anyway, so you can actually come and describe other ways of doing the same thing. Now why would we want that? I'll tell you why. Because I actually want to create translations between them. So this website also supports describing translation, programmatic translation between one and the other. So if I go and create a bridge between OCF world. Remember I showed one of the first slides. We have transition technologies. We create bridges. We do it by examining the both sides. And somebody made the rules. So you divide by a thousand and subtract 273.15. The rule is there. So I know how to write the translation software. If possible, it actually generates code. We do have some prototype to generate JavaScript code. Most of the time it just puts on a comment saying this is what you should be doing. Please write the code. It's already, it's not everything. It's 100%. It gets you a long way around. We are, when we go to our liaison organizations, we go and tell them, hey, we would actually like you to work with us too.  So we're coming up with terms of service that we're going to be acceptable to all of them. Some of them are going to be proprietary. So you have to log in to get some credentials to see some of the proprietary information for some of the other alliances and forums, for example. I don't know. And not happy with just this tool, we created the IoTivity project. So the IoTivity project is a Linux foundation open source by arrows changed again.  I'm sorry, I lost train of thought. Yes, it's a Linux foundation project. We're using Apache 2.0 license. So if you're happy with that license in terms of what the patent grant gives you, you don't even need to join the OCF. Again, I recommend you do if you're a company because you get extra protections, you get to participate in the next protocol as well. And if you want to certify, I think you have to be a member.  The project is very simple. So if you've seen, for example, how Yocto project works, it has an advisory board, an advisory committee, it's a number of people who are there to advise on non-technical matters. Everything else is left for the technical people, which I represented here in green. We call projects when it is something specific. We have a source code that needs to be done, or a section of source code, a module, a portion of the code. So we have somebody who maintains the discovery and connectivity. How do we work with finding other devices? And functions we call everything that works across the project. So we have a function for QA. Somebody is responsible for QA of the entire thing. We have a function for release management. Somebody has to release each of the different projects at some time. Meritocratic, fair, open development process. I'm going to show the vision before. Meritocratic is there. Fair is there. Open is there. And these are not anything you haven't seen before. We just want to do a good job in open source. You do not have to be a member of the OCF to participate in IoTivity. We have a couple of people who are individuals who like the technology. And every time I come to a conference, I get one or two more. I'm hoping to see some of you. They come, join us, implement it, and do something different. Try to do something we hadn't thought of. Why would you join if you're not a member? Well, you can actually go beyond the specification. You can create new things. So let me just give an example. We do have co-op over TCP. And the Bluetooth elite transport. That is not in the specification. The specification doesn't take this into account. So if you have a device that I tried to use with Bluetooth LE, great. You're not going to pass a notification. So why are we doing this? We're doing it to figure out where we should be going. This is experimental technology. All the bridge plugins are part... Not all of them. Some cannot be. But all of the ones we can are part of IoTivity. We're doing tests to figure out how to do cloud integration. As an example of an experimental technology that became part of the standard, we have the concepts called resource directory. So it is when a device registers itself with another device and stops listening on multicast. So the resource directory was something we created on the source code. We had more or less an idea we were going to need it. So what happened was that the source code went there, tested it, figured out, yeah, this is a good idea. It works. We went back and wrote the specification for it. So what you can do is you can influence on one side or you can influence on the other side. The two drive in parallel. And more than that, an important distinction between OCF and other groups that create standards. Like I'm going to pick on the Wi-Fi alliance. We only release the spec. If the reference implementation contains the code for it. If it's not on the reference implementation, you cannot require other people to do that. It might be an interesting technology that you wrote on the spec. Unless you wrote the equivalent implementation on the open source, on a open source, hopefully this one doesn't have to be, that technology cannot be required for others. The main implementation runs on Android, Linux, Tizen, and Windows. So we actually have Microsoft working with us on an open source project under the Linux foundation to support the operating systems. We're not restricted to that. Whoops, didn't take it. So we have the implementation for constrained devices. If you're interested in hearing more about it, there's a session later today at four, for ten, one of the rooms up there. So my colleague Kishan is going to be talking about it. It's been designed for scratch, for small devices. An example of the Intel Quark family. It doesn't use Malok. There is no single call to Malok in the source code. The reason for that is that I want to run on small devices that don't support dynamic memory management. Or I want to be real-time. So Malok is not deterministic. I just want to do a job fully compatible with the specification of the main implementation. Support for Linux, actually we have support. Support for Linux is mostly for testing so that we don't have to boot another operating system. It supports Zephyr. And I think that I forgot to add because it was only last week that he finished a port to Contiki. So if you're running Contiki, we already work on this and he has actually hardware working with it and you can talk to him later. We have an implementation for Node.js. And it's created in such a way that it feels home for Node.js developers. You use NPM to install it. And the API feels native, feels JavaScript. Here's the API. It's very simple. Based on promises and futures. I don't know if you're familiar with Node.js. It probably should be because it's taking over. I don't like it. I'm a C++ developer. So my talk on Thursday is about C++. But I see people using Node.js a lot. Based on simple promises, futures and events. Let me just give you an example. This is a Node.js client of Iotivity. So what it does is that it... Where's my mouse? Here we go. Imports Iotivity node, configures itself as a client, right? Then it will find resources here. This was just very simple. You can actually pass extra parameters describing what you're looking for. So who's a toaster? When a resource is found, run a Lambda. It will print some information. Check if it's the resource I was looking for. So don't do this. This is not the way to do resource research. You should put the requirement here. So you don't flood yourself with information back. This was only here. So we actually printed everything we found on the network. If it was what I wanted, I'm going to retrieve information about it, right? Then run a function. So it's a promise. Change a property and then update it. And if that is done, once the update confirms that it was done, it will exit. So this is less than 20 lines of code. I wrote an Iotivity client. The server is no bigger than this. Of course, there's a lot of code behind the scenes. But this is how we meant it to be simple. We also have a couple of other projects. So like I said, we have bridges to UPnP now. We have bridges to the all-join. You saw we'd merged. That was why. We were working on making the two technologies come together. We have a common direction forward. But I want my devices that were on the other side. So they have their all-join devices. They feel they find everybody else on the network. Testing tools, simulation, a couple of other things. So to finish, I'd like you to get involved. We have the open source project that's Iotivity. You can join. You don't have to be a member. We have the one Iota tool, which is, again, free and open. And at least our specifications are free and open source. Again, you don't have to be a member. You can just come and participate. And we have the open connectivity foundation, which leads you to the certification. That one is a paying foundation. Actually, individuals can join as well. I don't know how much we... I don't think individuals are... It's free. Yeah. So you can actually be as an individual, a member for free of the OCF. There are certain restrictions. If you're a part of a larger company, we actually invite you to join as a gold, diamond, or platinum member. So that's it. Any questions? If you have a simple scenario, two light switches and one light bulb, you define some kind of scenario for the light bulb on the one switch, where is it stored and can I access it from the other light switch too? So you're asking... I'm just repeating because we're being filmed. You're asking where the data is stored. Your question was mostly on I5, two light switches and one light bulb. Can I access the information? As an example, I have parallel switches. They both control the same light bulb and I want to toggle it instead of... I pressed it on. It was already on. It doesn't do anything. So basically it's what I said before.  The protocol itself does not say anything. This is implementation detail. As in the sense of... If I'm writing my application, I need to figure out a way. Now, if you ask me how I think this is going to go, I actually expect that the light bulb is an OCF resource. It's a server. It sits there passively. The light switch is a light bulb. It's an OCF server. It stays there waiting to be discovered. It announces when you press the button and says, hey, I was pressed. So what I expect is that there's another device in your network that actually does bind everything together. Because if I buy a light switch, I might want to control something different than a light bulb. I might want to control my garage door or the sprinklers or the pump that refreshes the water in my swimming pool. So that functionality is not going to come programmed into each light bulb. What action it takes is something that I'm going to write. So I expect there will be another device in my network, usually your router, because it's in a central place, that receives all of that information, stores the state, and then sends the command off. Because I might want to, for some crazy reason, change the light bulb, which light it turns on depending on what time of day it is. Here's what interesting about this. If this device, which I'm looking at, I can program it. I can hold this morning on the keynote with Node-RED. So if I have Node-RED or an equivalent technology, I can just connect the multiple sensors, and light switches are nothing but sensors, like contact, toggle. Some of these, you flip them. Some of them, they come back to the original state. The point is, I can connect that to different things. I can do interesting things. I can send to the cloud how many times I turn the lights on and off. If I'm getting a reading from the energy company on how much the energy costs, I can turn three lights on instead of just one, if it's cheap, and it's night. So that technology, that information, I expect to be in different devices. I can write my own applications, and hopefully I'll also be able to download some of your interesting ideas and put it on my own device. Did I answer? Yes. So the question is, this rule engine, which I just mentioned, can be Node-RED, can be an FT-TT, can be something different, can be a Java, Node-JS application. Node-JS again. Should we standardize the way I communicate with it? I'll tell you this that we have not, because it hasn't come up yet. But personally, I think yes, to some extent. I don't want to standardize everything because I want to leave innovation for the people who create the rule engine. So if I go to MediaMarket, or I go to Best Buy in the US, and I buy this simple router, it's going to have only a basic interface. I might want to buy a more expensive model that has more information, that has connectivity to the cloud and gets information from... The example again we saw this morning, integrates with Alexa. So I can tell you what to do. It gets the information from my phone, where I am and automatically turns the AC on. So that extra functionality, we probably cannot standardize everything, and we should leave as innovation avenues for the different manufacturers. But yes, we should have something standardized. I really think that these rules engine devices are going to be very important, and therefore should deserve some attention. Is that a question? Okay. Any other questions? So I'm here for the rest of the week. Oh, sorry. There's a question there. So a binary switch. Could be, yes. Yeah. So how could we standardize as a developer in the developer perspective, if I had different features on different light bulbs, that would mean I would have to develop plugins for a central app or plugins for my router or plugins for something else if I want to implement that functionality. So the question is how do I connect the multiple devices with things that were not with special features, but basically with features that had not been... Not standardized, not mandatory. Not standardized, not mandatory or simply did not exist at the time whoever wrote the code. So that's a very good question. There are two things about this that is important. First, it is that we are creating for the next version of the spec called introspection. So you ask a device, what are you? What information do you have? Not just which properties it has, but also some human readable descriptions. Oh, this is the party mode. So that allows me to, when I'm looking at my rules engine that discovers everybody in the network, it says those light bulbs have party mode. And this is what they mean. Here's a link to the manufacturer's website to get more information and things like that. The introspection allows us to find the things that the device has, even if they did not exist at the time that I bought and installed my rules engine router. The second thing is that, depending on how that device works, it doesn't matter. It can be either a download, it doesn't have to be a plugin, it can be simple as what we saw this morning with Node-RED connecting boxes. I can have a web interface to my router, just go there, drag a few things, and now I have something new working on FTTT. This is a bit more advanced of what we're getting to. I want to get there, definitely, and I think this is my vision, mine, a couple of other people at Intel, most of OCF as well. This is our vision of where IoT needs to go. Smart home, yes, we're going to see slightly different on other industrial segments. Point is, we had to solve a different problem first. How do you find the device? How do you communicate with it? How do you represent the information? How do you get its own description? We had a couple of different problems to solve first. But once we're there, we start to look at the next problem. I think that's it. Do we come around to the beginning where every manufacturer is providing extensions to the protocol? Hopefully not, because we actually want to learn from you. We had an example of washing machines, and each washing machine has a different name for each of the features. We had manufacturers, no, no, no, mine isn't that which you standardize. It's something different because ours is better. We have to balance in such a way that manufacturers can have differentiation, but at the same time, we have interoperability communication. This is what OCF is for. For all of those manufacturers to get together and decide this is the common thing, this is such a way that it will work for everybody, and if I just want to turn light bulbs on, they're all on. We do want to keep the ability to differentiate, which does create back the original problem, but we're much further ahead from where we were in the beginning. So I'm out of time. Thank you for joining. Like I was saying, I'm here until Thursday evening. You can reach me by email or Google+. And I'm happy to answer questions outside, and by the OCF booth, Intel booth, or the Zephyr booth, where you find me. I'm happy to talk to you.


Yeah, I mean he crushed it. No doubt I'd fallen behind and got into a tough count. Really couldn't throw much for a strike at that point. And just right back through a fastball down the middle, he put a good swing on it. And thank goodness, Guardi was out there because that was unbelievable play. He banged his head pretty hard against the fence out there too, catching it. I think it was the game saving catch, game saving play that we had happen out there. It seemed like you were having bad thoughts when he initially hit it. You kind of put your hands on your head. Can you take me through the range of emotions you're feeling from contact to eventually seeing Gardner catch it?  Even though it's dead central, it can be a home run. All these guys have popped. Thankfully it stayed in the park. I knew Guardi had a beat on it right from the get-go. He was moving to where he thought it was going to land. And it's a tough sky to see or tough place to see the baseball too. Got there in time, caught it and prepared himself to bang against the wall. I mean, he's a good outfielder, made an incredible play. Guardi's been a starter of his whole career, not playing as much lately. What does that say about him coming off the bench and really running into wall? Yeah, I mean, that's the way he's always played. He's played hard. He gives it everything he's got out there. I don't know what else you can say about him. He straps it on when he gets in between the lines and gives you everything he's got. Is there any sort of different preparation mentally, I guess, for the relievers in a game like tonight where you know it can be... Same to any relievers. We pitch whenever. Dave, just in general, what do you think about your guys' first bullpen game, if you will? I don't really have much to say on it. I just pitch here.


sections 130 to 144 of Berkeley's treatise. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. sections 130 to 144 of a treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Part I, by George Berkeley. Of late the speculations about infinities have run so high, and grown to such strange notions, as have occasioned no small scruples of disputes among the geometers of the present age. Some there are of great note who, not content withholding that less finite lines may be divided into an infinite number of parts, do yet farther maintain that each of those infinitesimals is itself subdivisible into an infinity of other parts, or infinitesimals of a second order, and so on add infinitim. These I say assert there are infinitesimals of infinitesimals of infinitesimals, etc., without ever coming to an end, so that according to them an inch does not barely contain an infinite number of parts, but an infinity of an infinity of an infinity add infinitim of parts. Others there will be who hold all orders of infinitesimals below the first to be nothing at all, thinking it, with good reason, absurd to imagine there is any positive quantity or part of extension which, though multiplied infinitely, can never equal the smallest given extension. And yet, on the other hand, it seems no less absurd to think the square, cube, or other power of a positive real root should itself be nothing at all, which they who hold infinitesimals of the first order, denying all of the subsequent orders, are obliged to maintain. Have we not, therefore, reason to conclude they are both in the wrong, and that there is in effect no such thing as parts infinitely small, or an infinite number of parts contained in any finite quantity? But you will say that if this doctrine obtains it will follow the very foundations of geometry are destroyed, and those great men who have raised that science to so astonishing a height have been all the while building a castle in the air. To this it may be replied that whatever is useful in geometry, and promotes the benefit of human life, does still remain firm and unshaken on our principles, that science considered as practical will rather receive advantage than any prejudice from what has been said. But to set this in a due light may be the proper business of another place. For the rest, though it should follow that some of the more intricate and subtle parts of speculative mathematics may be paired off without any prejudice to truth, yet I do not see what damage will be thence derived to mankind. On the contrary, I think it were highly to be wished that men of great abilities and obstinate application would draw off their thoughts from those amusements and employ them in the study of such things as lie nearer the concerns of life, or have a more direct influence on the manners. It is besaid that several theorems undoubtedly true are discovered by methods in which infinitesimals are made use of, which could never have been if their existence included a contradiction in it. I answer that upon a thorough examination it will not be found that in any instance it is necessary to make use of or conceive infinitesimal parts of finite lines, or even quantities less than the minimum sensible. Nay, it will be evident that this is never done, it being impossible. By what we have premised it is plain that very numerous and important errors have taken their rise from those false principles which were impugned in the foregoing parts of this treatise, and the opposites of those erroneous tenets at the same time appear to be most fruitful principles from whence do flow innumerable consequences highly advantageous to true philosophy as well as to religion. Particularly matter, or the absolute existence of corporeal objects, have been shown to be that wherein the most avowed and pernicious of enemies of all knowledge, whether human or divine, have ever placed their chief strength and confidence. And surely, if by distinguishing the real existence of unthinkable things from their being perceived, and allowing them a subsistence of their own out of the minds of spirits, no one thing is explained in nature. But on the contrary, a great many inexplicable difficulties arise. If the supposition of matter is barely precarious, as not being grounded on so much as one single reason, if its consequences cannot endure the light of examination and free inquiry, but screen themselves under the dark and general pretense of infinites being incomprehensible, if with all the removal of this matter be not attended with the least evil consequence, if it be not even missed in the world, but everything as well, nay, much easier conceived without it, if lastly both skeptics and atheists are forever silenced upon supposing only spirits and ideas, and this scheme of things is perfectly agreeable both to reason and religion, many things we may expect it should be admitted and firmly embraced, though it were proposed only as in hypothesis, and the existence of matter had been allowed possible, which yet I think we have evidently demonstrated that it is not. True it is that, in consequence of the foregoing principles, several disputes and speculations which are esteemed no mean parts of learning are rejected as useless. But how great a prejudice so ever against our notions this may give to those who have already been deeply engaged, and make large advances in studies of that nature, yet by others we hope it will not be thought any just ground dislike to the principles and tenets herein laid down, that they abridge the labor of study and make human sciences far more clear, compendious, and attainable than they were before. Having dispatched what we intended to say concerning the knowledge of ideas, the method we proposed leads us in the next place to treat of spirits, with regard to which perhaps human knowledge is not so deficient as is vulgarly imagined. The great reason that is assigned for our being thought ignorant of the nature of spirits is not our having an idea of it. But surely it ought not to be looked on as a defect in a human understanding that it is not perceived the idea of spirit. If it is manifestly impossible there should be any idea. And this, if I mistake not, has been demonstrated in Section 27, to which I shall here add that a spirit has been shown to be the only substance or support wherein unthinkable beings or ideas can exist, but that this substance which supports or perceives ideas should itself be an idea or like an idea is evidently absurd. It will perhaps be said that we want a sense, as some have imagined, proper to know substances with all, which, if we had, we might know our own soul as we do a triangle. To this I answer, that in case we had a new sense bestowed upon us, we could only receive thereby some new sensations or ideas of sense. But I believe nobody will say that what he means by the terms soul and substance is only some particular sort of idea or sensation. We may therefore infer that, all things duly considered, it is not more reasonable to think our faculties defective, in that they do not furnish us with an idea of spirit or active thinking substance, than it would be if we should blame them for not being able to comprehend a round square. From the opinion that spirits are to be known after the manner of an idea or sensation have risen many absurd and heterodox tenets, and much skepticism about the nature of the soul. It is even probable that this opinion may have produced a doubt in some whether they had any soul at all distinct from their body, since upon inquiry they could not find they had an idea of it. That an idea which is inactive and the existence whereof consists in being perceived, should be the image or likeness of an agent subsisting by itself, seems to need no other refutation than barely attending to what is meant by those words. But perhaps you will say that though an idea cannot resemble a spirit in its thinking, acting, or subsisting by itself, yet it may in some other respects. And it is not necessary that an idea or image be in all respects like the original. I answer, if it does not in those mentioned, it is impossible it should represent it in any other thing. Do but leave out the power of willing, thinking, and perceiving ideas, and there remains nothing else wherein the idea can be like a spirit. For by the word spirit we mean only that which thinks, wills, and perceives. This and this alone constitutes the signification of the term. If, therefore, it is impossible that any degree of those powers should be represented in an idea, it is evident there can be no idea of a spirit. But it will be objected that, if there is no idea signified by the terms soul, spirit, and substance, they are wholly insignificant, or have no meaning in them. I answer, those words do mean or signify a real thing which is neither an idea nor like an idea, but that which perceives ideas, and wills and reasons about them. What I am myself, that which I denote by the term I, is the same with what is meant by soul or spiritual substance. If it be said that this is only quarreling at a word, and that, since the immediately significations of other names are by common consent called ideas, no reason can be assigned why that which is signified by the name spirit or soul may not partake in the same appellation. I answer, all the unthinking objects of the mind agree in that they are entirely passive, and their existence consists only in being perceived, whereas a soul or spirit is an active being whose existence consists not in being perceived, but in perceiving ideas and thinking. It is therefore necessary in order to prevent equivocation and confounding natures perfectly disagreeing and unlike, that we distinguish between spirits and idea. C. 27. In a large sense indeed we may be said to have an idea or rather a notion of spirit, that is, we understand the meaning of the word, otherwise we could not affirm or deny anything of it. Moreover, as we conceive the ideas that are in the minds of other spirits by means of our own, which we supposed to be resemblances of them, so we know other spirits by means of our own soul, which in that sense is the image or idea of them, it having a like respect to other spirits that blueness or heat by me perceived has to those ideas perceived by another. It must not be supposed that they who assert the natural immortality of the soul are of opinion that it is absolutely incapable of annihilation, even by the infinite power of the Creator, who first gave it being, but only that it is not liable to be broken or dissolved by the ordinary laws of nature or motion. They indeed, who hold the soul of a man to be only a thin vital flame, or system of animal spirits, make it perishable and corruptable as the body, since there is nothing more easily dissipated than such a being, which it is naturally impossible should survive the ruin of the tabernacle wherein it is enclosed. And this notion has been greedily embraced and cherished by the worst part of mankind as the most effectual antidote against all impressions of virtue and religion. But it has been made evident that bodies, of what frame or texture so ever, are barely passive ideas in the mind, which is more distant and heterogenous from them than light is from darkness. We have shown that the soul is indivisible, incorporeal, unextended, and it is consequently incorruptible. Nothing can be planer than that the motions, changes, decays, and dissolutions which we hourly see befall natural bodies, and which is what we mean by the course of nature cannot possibly affect an active, simple, uncompounded substance. Such a being, therefore, is indissoluble by the force of nature. That is to say, the soul of man is naturally immortal. After what has been said it is, I suppose, plain that our souls are not to be known in the same manner as senseless, inactive objects, or by way of an idea. Spirits and ideas are things so wholly different that when we say they exist, they are known, or the like, these words must not be thought to signify anything common to both natures. There is nothing alike or common in them, and to expect that by any multiplication or enlargement of our faculties, we may be enabled to know a spirit as we do a triangle seems absurd as if we should hope to see a sound. This is inculcated because I imagine it may be of moment towards clearing several important questions, and preventing some very dangerous errors concerning the nature of the soul. We may not, I think, strictly be said to have an idea of an active being, or of an action, although we may be said to have a notion of them. I have some knowledge or notion of my mind, and its acts about ideas, inasmuch as I know or understand what is meant by these words. What I know, that I have some notion of, I will not say that the terms idea and notion may not be used convertibly, if the world will have it so. But yet it can do sith to clearness and propriety that we distinguish things very different by different names. It is also to be remarked that, all relations, including an act of the mind, we cannot so properly be said to have an idea, but rather a notion of the relations and habitudes between things. But if in the modern way the word idea is extended to spirits and relations and acts, this is, after all, an affair of verbal concern. It will not be a mist to add that the doctrines of abstract ideas has had no small share in rendering those sciences intricate and obscure, which are particularly confersen about spiritual things. Men have imagined they could frame abstract notions of the powers and acts of the mind, and consider them presended as well from the mind or spirit itself, as from their respective objects and effects. Hence a great number of dark and ambiguous terms, presumed to stand for abstract notions, have been introduced into metaphysics and morality, and from these have grown infinite distraction and disputes amongst the learned. But nothing seems more to have contributed towards engaging men in controversies and mistakes with regard to the nature and operations of the mind than the being used to speak of those things in terms borrowed from sensible ideas. For example, the will is termed the motion of the soul. This infuses a belief that the mind of man is as a ball in motion, impelled and determined by the objects of sense, as necessarily is that is by the stroke of a racket. Hence arise endless scruples and errors of dangerous consequence and morality. All which, I doubt not, may be cleared, and truth appear plain, uniform and consistent, could but philosophers be prevailed on to retire into themselves and attentively consider their own meaning. End of sections 130 to 144. Sections 145 to 156 of Barclay's Treatise This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. This reading by Carmanchester 2009. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Part 1. By George Barclay. 145. From what has been said, it is plain that we cannot know the existence of other spirits otherwise than by their operations or the ideas by them excited in us. I perceive several motions, changes and combinations of ideas that inform me there are certain particular agents like myself which accompany them and concur in their production. Hence the knowledge I have of other spirits is not immediate, as is the knowledge of my ideas. But depending on the intervention of ideas, by me referred to agents or spirits distinct from myself as effects or concomitant signs. 146. But though there be some things which convince us human agents are concerned in producing them, yet it is evident to everyone that those things which are called the works of nature, that is the far greater part of the ideas or sensations perceived by us, are not produced by or dependent on the wills of men. There is therefore some other spirit that causes them, since it is repugnant that they should subsist by themselves. C. 29. But if we attentively consider the constant regularity, order and concatenation of natural things, the surprising magnificence, beauty and perfection of the larger and the exquisite contrivance of the smaller parts of creation, together with the exact harmony and correspondence of the whole, but above all the never enough admired laws of pain and pleasure, and the instincts or natural inclinations, appetites and passions of animals, I say if we consider all these things and at the same time attend to the meaning and import of the attributes, one eternal, infinitely wise, good and perfect, we shall clearly perceive that they belong to the aforesaid spirit, quote, who works all in all, end quote, and quote, by whom all things consist, end quote. 147. Hence it is evident that God is known as certainly and immediately as any other mind or spirit whatsoever distinct from ourselves. We may even assert that the existence of God is far more evidently perceived than the existence of men, because the effects of nature are infinitely more numerous and considerable than those ascribed to human agents. There is not any one mark that denotes a man, or effect produced by him, which does not more strongly evince the being of that spirit who is the author of nature. For it is evident that in effecting other persons the will of man has no other object than barely the motion of the limbs of his body. But that such a motion should be attended by or excite any idea in the mind of another depends wholly on the will of the Creator. He alone it is who, quote, upholding all things by the word of his power, end quote, maintains that intercourse between spirits, whereby they are able to perceive the existence of each other, and yet this pure and clear light which enlightens everyone is itself invisible. 148. It seems to be a great pretense of the unthinking herd that they cannot see God. Could we but see him, say they, as we see a man? We should believe that he is, and believing, obey his commands. But alas, we need only open our eyes to see the sovereign Lord of all things with a more full and clear view than we do any one of our fellow creatures. Not that I imagine we may see God, as some will have it, by a direct and immediate view, or see corporeal things, not by themselves but by seeing that which represents them in the essence of God, which doctrine is I must confess to me incomprehensible. But I shall explain my meaning. A human spirit or person is not perceived by sense as not being an idea. When, therefore, we see the color, size, figure and motions of a man, we perceive only certain sensations or ideas excited in our own minds, and these being exhibited to our view in sundry distinct collections, serve to mark out unto us the existence of finite and created spirits like ourselves. Hence it is plain we do not see a man, if by a man is meant that which lives, moves, perceives and thinks as we do. But only such a certain collection of ideas as directs us to think there is a distinct principle of thought and motion like ourselves accompanying and represented by it. And after the same manner we see God. All the difference is that whereas some one finite and narrow assemblage of ideas denotes a particular human mind, with the so ever we direct our view, we do at all times and in all places perceive manifest tokens of the divinity. Everything we see, hear, feel or any wise perceive by sense being a sign or effect of the power of God, as is our perception of those very motions which are produced by men. 149. It is therefore plain that nothing can be more evident to anyone that is capable of the least reflection than the existence of God or a spirit who is intimately present to our minds, producing in them all that variety of ideas or sensations which continually affect us, on whom we have an absolute and entire dependence, in short, quote, in whom we live and move and have our being, end quote. That the discovery of this great truth which lies so near and obvious to the mind should be attained by the reason of so very few is a sad instance of the stupidity and inattention of men who, though they are surrounded with such clear manifestations of the deity, are yet so little affected by them that they seem as it were blinded with excess of light. 150. But, you will say, hath nature no share in the production of natural things, and must they be all ascribed to the immediate and sole operation of God? I answer, if by nature is meant only the visible series of effects or sensations imprinted on our minds according to certain fixed and general laws, then it is plain that nature, taken in this sense, cannot produce anything at all. But if by nature is meant some being distinct from God, as well as from the laws of nature, and things perceived by sense, I must confess that word is to me an empty sound without any intelligible meaning annexed to it. Nature, in this acceptation, is a vain chimera, introduced by those heathens who had not just notions of the omnipresent and infinite perfection of God, but it is more unaccountable that it should be received among Christians professing belief in the Holy Scriptures, which constantly ascribe those effects to the immediate hand of God that heathen philosophers are wont to impute to nature. Quote, the Lord he callseth the vapours to ascend, he maketh lightnings with rain, he bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures. End quote, Jeremiah chapter 10 verse 13. Quote, he turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night. End quote, Amos chapter 5 verse 8. Quote, he visiteth the earth, and maketh it soft with showers. He blesseth the springing thereof, and crowneth the year with his goodness, so that the pastures are clothed with flocks, and the valleys are covered over with corn. End quote, C. Psalm 65. But notwithstanding that this is the constant language of Scripture, yet we have I know not what aversion from believing that God concerns himself so nearly in our affairs. Fain would we suppose him at a great distance off, and substitute some blind and thinking deputy in his stead, though, if we may believe St. Paul, quote, he be not far from every one of us. End quote. 151. It will, I doubt not, be objected that the slow and gradual methods observed in the production of natural things do not seem to have for their cause the immediate hand of an almighty agent. Besides, monsters, untimely births, fruits blasted in the blossom, rains falling in desert places, miseries incident to human life, and the like, are so many arguments that the whole frame of nature is not immediately actuated, and superintended by a spirit of infinite wisdom and goodness. But the answer to this objection is in a good measure plain from section 62, it being visible that the aforesaid methods of nature are absolutely necessary in order to working by the most simple and general rules, and after a steady and consistent manner, which argues both the wisdom and goodness of God. Such is the artificial contrivance of this mighty machine of nature, that whilst its motions and various phenomena strike on our senses, the hand which actuates the whole is itself unperceivable to men of flesh and blood. Quote, verily, end quote, saith the Prophet. Quote, Thou art a God that hideest thyself, end quote. Isaiah chapter 45 verse 15. But though the Lord conceal himself from the eyes of the sensual and lazy, who will not be at the least expense of thought, yet to an unbiased and attentive mind, nothing can be more plainly legible than the intimate presence of an all-wise spirit who fashions, regulates, and sustains the whole system of beings. It is clear from what we have elsewhere observed that the operating according to general and stated laws is so necessary for our guidance in the affairs of life, and letting us into the secret of nature, that without it all reach and compass of thought, all human sagacity and design, could serve to no manner of purpose. It were even impossible that there should be any such faculties or powers in the mind. See section 31. Which one consideration abundantly outbalances whatever particular inconveniences may then arise? 152. We should further consider that the very blemishes and defects of nature are not without their use, in that they make an agreeable sort of variety, and augment the beauty of the rest of the creation, as shades in a picture serve to set off the brighter and more enlightened parts. We would likewise do well to examine whether our taxing the waste of seeds and embryos, and accidental destruction of plants and animals before they come to full maturity, as an imprudence to the author of nature, be not the effect of prejudice contracted by our familiarity with impotent and saving mortals. In man indeed, a thrifty management of those things which he cannot procure without much pains in industry may be esteemed wisdom. But we must not imagine that the inexplicably fine machines of an animal or vegetable cost the great creator any more pains and trouble in its production than a pebble does. Nothing being more evident than that the omnipotent spirit can indifferently produce everything by a mere fear or act of his will. Hence it is plain that the splendid profusion of natural things should not be interpreted weakness or prodigality in the agent who produces them, but rather be looked on as an argument of the riches of his power. 153 As for the mixture of pain or uneasiness which is in the world pursuant to the general laws of nature and the actions of finite, imperfect spirits, this, in the state we are in at present, is indispensable necessary to our well-being. But our prospects are too narrow. We take for instance the idea of some one particular pain into our thoughts and account it evil. Whereas if we enlarge our view so as to comprehend the various ends, connections and dependencies of things, on what occasions and in what proportions we are affected with pain and pleasure, the nature of human freedom and the design with which we are put into the world, we shall be forced to acknowledge that those particular things which, considered in themselves, appear to be evil, have the nature of good when considered as linked with the whole system of beings. 154 From what has been said it will be manifest to any considering person that it is merely for want of attention and comprehensiveness of mind that there are any favourers of atheism or the Manichaean heresy to be found. Little and unreflecting souls may indeed burlesque the works of Providence, the beauty and order whereof they have not capacity or will not be at the pains to comprehend. But those who are masters of any justness and extent of thought and are with all use to reflect, can never sufficiently admire the divine traces of wisdom and goodness that shine throughout the economy of nature. But what truth is there which shine us so strongly on the mind that by an aversion of thought a willful shutting of the eyes we may not escape seeing it? It is therefore to be wondered at if the generality of men who are ever intent on business or pleasure and little use to fix or open the eye of their mind should not have all that conviction and evidence of the being of God which might be expected in reasonable creatures. 155 We should rather wonder that men can be found so stupid as to neglect than that neglecting they should be unconvinced of such an evident and momentous truth, and yet it is to be feared that too many of parts and leisure who live in Christian countries are merely through a supine and dreadful negligence sunk into atheism. Since it is downright impossible that a soul pierced and enlightened with a thorough sense of the omnipresence, holiness and justice of that almighty spirit should persist in a remorseless violation of his laws, we ought therefore earnestly to meditate and dwell on those important points, that so we may attain conviction without all scruple, quote, that the eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good, that he is with us and keepeth us in all places whither we go, and giveth us bread to eat and raiment to put on, end quote, that he is present and conscious to our innermost thoughts, and that we have a most absolute and immediate dependence on him, a clear view of which great truths cannot choose but fill our hearts with an awful circumspection and holy fear, which is the strongest incentive to virtue and the best guard against vice. 156 For, after all, what deserves the first place in our studies is the consideration of God and our duty. Which to promote, as it was the main drift and design of my labours, so shall I esteem them altogether useless and ineffectual, if, by what I have said, I cannot inspire my readers with a pious sense of the presence of God. And having shunned the falseness or vanity of those barren speculations which make the chief employment of learned men, the better dispose them to reverence and embrace the salutary truths of the gospel, which to know and to practice is the highest perfection of human nature. The end of a treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Part 1


What's up my beautiful babies? How are we feeling today? Are you feeling as extra as I'm feeling because I'm feeling real extra and I'm living for it Just live your extra life girl. Get your live your extra life putty now It'll be linked below So you guys really seem to love my video on how to pick the best hair color for your skin tone that video will Be linked below of course and I decided to come on here today And why not tell you what the best haircut is for your face shape? So if you want to know how to pick the best haircut for your face shape, and I hope you do It's very important then stay tuned and let's get it started. All right. Let's jump right into this Let's talk about all the different face shapes you can possibly have So there are six different face shapes now You can have one of these six or you can sort of have a mix of a couple of the six of these Some people, you know, don't really fit into the guidelines of these face shapes But you can always mix and match them to think of like what your face shape is exactly the diamond Face shape so that means from the top of your forehead to the corner of your eyes The other corner of your eyes to your chin is sort of in a diamond so that sounds kind of weird, but Usually the the chin is kind of more pronounced and comes out more the jawline is more angular Which is making kind of like a diamond shape and then the forehead is kind of smaller and coming back into a point of here Also, your cheekbones if you have a diamond face shape might be kind of like more high and More pointed upwards giving you more of like that angular look the oval face shape Usually your forehead is slightly wider than your chin and the length of your face is about one and a half times The width of your face, which of course you guys know what an oval looks like that one's simple. I mean come on You know an oval face shape is literally just like an oval. You know that you know what that shape is You got that one. Okay, then you have the round face shape, which is also super simple It's just more round than the oval face shape So kind of have bigger cheeks and there's not any angles Then we have the square face shape Which of course is more of a wide chin and wide forehead Which is going to make it very very very angular people with a square face usually have a very predominant chin wider forehead and the forehead and jawline are usually the same width now this next one's kind of confusing We then have the oblong face shape sort of like the oval face shape, but not as wide So take the oval face and kind of squish it together and like take those sides off of the oval And that's where you have oblong so it's a rounded on the top in the bottom, but more Squared off, but still a little bit rounded on the sides Another way that oblong differs from oval is that the chin is more narrow than somebody with an oval face shape So instead of going like completely round at the bottom it's a little bit more sharp at the bottom than an oval face shape Would have been and lastly we have the heart shape face shape face shape tape The heart shaped face Such a cute one So this means that your face is wider at the top with a larger forehead and higher cheekbones that kind of are pronounced giving you that heart and then your chin is very very small and Petite and kind of comes to a point at the bottom. So now that you guys know the six different face shapes Let's go over some celebrities who have these different face shapes And that way it can be a little more simple for you guys to figure out what face shape is yours So the diamond face Megan Fox is definitely a diamond face gal Okay, okay, you can see that her cheekbones are very pronounced and she still has kind of a refined jawline it's definitely on the sharper side and comes to a point down here and then has a smaller forehead so Let's move on to oval Jessica Alba definitely has more of an oval face her cheekbones are a little bit wide and then it kind of goes down and tapers into a very soft Rounded chin and a very soft rounded hairline. So now on to round face shapes Miranda Kerr definitely has a Gorgeous round face. So this one's pretty simple. You get it. I'm sure it's just round Circular there's no angles to it and now on to square face shapes Olivia Wilde is a great example of this she definitely has a square face at this one again is simple It looks like a square you guys know what a square looks like The forehead and the jawline are about the same width and the sides of the face are the same heights And it is very angular There's a lot of sharp lines and now we have Sarah Jessica Parker who has to me has an oblong face So it's definitely on the longer side going in this way And it's more narrow going this way But you know everything is kind of rounded But she definitely does have more of an angular chin Which makes it a little bit different from having an oval face So and now Reese Witherspoon is a great example of a heart-shaped face You can tell it's a bit wider up here on her face And then comes down to a point at her chin forming a beautiful heart-shaped face So now let's talk about what haircut is gonna look the most fabulous though on you and your face shape girl Okay, you got me. So basically as a hairdresser our goal is to give you more of an oval face because That apparently is the most like attractive Face shape for a female so when cutting hair our aim is to make your face look more oval So all the things I'm about to explain is the way you can make your face look more oval if it's not already oval The oval face shape you can pretty much get away with any haircut Usually something more on the extreme side will be better for you.   So with heart shaped faces Our goal is to take off from the width of the forehead and add it to the jawline To balance it out to make it look more oval So I would definitely recommend having your hair length at your chin or a little bit below it to bring more Attention to your jaw, which is gonna eventually make it look wider to the eye You can also kind of play around with a fringe like a sideswept fringe that way kind of distracts from the overall Wideness of your forehead that way you can decrease the size up here and add a little bit of length to your chin and down here So to me the diamond face shape is so pretty on women I mean I love I love angles on women a lot of people love oval face shapes And that's kind of like our goal with haircuts like I said before is to make it more oval Don't think I'm trying to say like you look good if you have a certain face shape That is not true, but too if you wanted to make your face look more oval, which is sort of the goal here You can always do like a bob with some nice Whispy pieces going into your face gonna distract from like the the harsh sharp lines of your jaw All right, so we just covered so much Let's talk about it real quick and sum everything up I'm not trying to say that if you don't have an oval face that you are not beautiful and gorgeous because that is not true You're all beautiful and gorgeous, but societal standards Say that you know an oval face shape is the most desirable and the most feminine So whenever you don't have an oval face shape You're always trying to kind of make it look more oval But girl if you got these angles on your face, honey, you are still beautiful. You are still gorgeous I could keep going on and on about this for so long But those are just a few basic simple guidelines to follow when picking the best haircut that is gonna look good for your face shape So I hope that helped all of you guys out and if you have more questions Leave them below and I'll try and get back to as many of you guys as possible And again, if you guys want to check out how to pick the right hair color for your skin tone That'll be linked below also if you're new here and you're not subscribed Please subscribe I would really appreciate it and give this video a like if you want me to make more videos like this And today's Instagram shout out goes to this chick. This is her insta handle. I don't know what her name is She didn't tell me. Um, this is what she looks like She says okay Brad. So I've always had super short hair. So I'm trying to grow it out But I've got the short hair fever again. Should I really let my hair grow long or chop it off? Love you. I love you too girl. Okay.  And um, yeah The short hair it just works so good for your face shape and you can rock it I would oh my god, you're blonde girl.  Peace