This new report examines the inclusion of smallholder farmers in modern value chains. And that means simply when small scale farmers in places like Africa, Latin America, Asia who are producing very small quantities are linked to these global networks of production. Often through big corporate brands and corporations but also through supermarket chains. So this gives smallholders the opportunity to access these what are called highly lucrative markets where they can sell their products and they can in theory receive a lot of benefits from doing so. And what this report does is we're in a way putting the microphone to people working in that sector and asking them, well, is that all true? Is that all the case? Has it delivered these types of benefits? And what we're hearing in this report and what we write in the report is there's lots of rumblings and there's lots of concerns and questions from people within the sector about the effectiveness of these linkages between smallholders and these global value chains. So this report prompts a host of new questions about whether this has been the right tool for the right problem. This is an essential question of development for many years is how do you develop rural areas? So poverty, low productivity, access to technologies, this has been a perennial problem of development. How do you modernize and bring markets and how do you bring development into rural areas? And from about 20 years or so, the solution has been, well, to do that, farmers are stuck in this low productivity, low yielding, low income cycles of producing very basic food staples. So if only we were able to link them to highly profitable markets, that would change the game. That's the theory and that is why it was pushed. The idea was if the farmer is able to sell instead of to the local regional wholesale market, if they sell to Tesco or if they sell to Unilever, then they might get a much bigger, a much better price and a better slice of the profits. And what I see is interesting about this is that to do that is difficult. And so farmers need help to do it because complying with the standards of these big networks is difficult. So the whole inclusion program is about supporting farmers to be able to do that effectively. What we found is that basically there's too many hopes and too many ambitions hinging on this issue of smallholder inclusion. So yes, farmers are selling into this market, some of them are certainly, but it hasn't really brought all the benefits that it was supposed to bring, higher profits, income, jobs, investment. There have been some benefits to some farmers, but mostly to farmers that were already rich or were already better off. It hasn't really brought big benefits to the poor farmers. And there were also ambitions and expectations that this was going to be a game changer in terms of women empowerment, but we also haven't seen that. We've seen that women and gender inequalities really, really persistent even when farmers build a selling to these markets. And the other thing that was hoped for was it will that is that it would have big environmental benefits that by linking to these modern sophisticated markets in environmental degradation could be reversed. It could produce in more sustainable ways. And we actually haven't seen a lot of progress in that area either. So it's incomes, it's gender, it's environment where the ambitions were high and the delivery seems to be well short of what was expected. What we found is that this topic is moving in a really interesting direction, which is the industry and the sector insiders realize everything I just said. They know they they themselves have prompted these questions. And so what is interesting is to see where they're looking at for for signposts for for where to invest and where to go next. And the big one that we see is actually the recognition that it's local informal domestic food markets that might be the solution and that might be the answer. So rather than having to sell to the test goals or the uni leaders, as I said, the it might be that selling to a neighbor selling in their local market actually is a more profitable endeavor that it presents perhaps less hassle for farmers. They get paid in cash. They can sell all sorts of qualities we are having to worry too much about standards and and they get paid quickly. So so so the appeal of these of these global chains, I think is being lost a bit. And it's really this this informal markets where where where the action seems to be, but the trick a bit and where I think investors and donors might be wanting some guidance is they don't have a lot of experience working with this more informal side of the market and obviously it's easier to work through a big business like Unilever than it is to work through a more messy intermediaries wholesalers of traditional markets but I think what with the right tools. The investment in this in this what is often called the hidden part of the supply chain can can provide a real effective way of helping farmers and by the way helping the whole lot of other people who are involved in food trade.


The last part of mixed structures I want to show you are these. These are alpha plus beta proteins that contain their binding DNA. And it turns out in particular the beta sheets are going to be really useful here because the beta sheet will expose the hydrogen bonds that can interact with the bases. The first one, this is called a so-called sink finger protein. If you have lots of imagination you can think of this as a hand and then you're binding a sink here. I said that you needed lots of imagination. Try to look it up online and I bet you're going to find a hand illustration somewhere. This other protein is called a Tata binding protein. It has nothing to do with the Indian consulting company Tata. This is a, do you see again that it's naturally twisting? That had to do with the propensity of beta sheets to twist. This twist has also evolved to fit perfectly in the major groove of DNA. So what do you think that the Tata binding protein does? T, A, T, A. Where have you seen those letters? That's right, DNA basis. So this particular protein binds the sequence Tata in DNA and it's a so-called transcription factor. So it's a protein that it somewhat diffuses almost along the DNA strand, binds to a particular part and helps initiate transcription. That is where we're going to start reading the genetic code that will enable us to build more proteins. And here you see the turnover. It's proteins themselves are responsible for the factors that build proteins. It's a protein deciding where we should start to read the DNA. It's a protein doing the reading of DNA. It's a protein doing the duplication of DNA. It's a protein splicing together basis into mRNA. It's a protein taking the mRNA and reading it binding in the tRNA, now I'm talking about the ribosome, to create the actual protein. So it's proteins everywhere. Apart from the nucleic acids and lipids that are special cases, if anything is doing something in a cell, your first bed should be protein. And that is in principle all the secondary structures we're going to need. Sorry, not the secondary structures, all the protein structures. We have pure beta-beta sheet globular proteins. We had pure alpha helical globular proteins. And then we had these mixtures that were either alternating or segregated regions. Now


Hiya. Well, I'm going to talk really fast because if I talk really fast then I can't get down almost at the time when I was supposed to be done.  Okay? I'm going too fast. Okay. As preset, I'm with IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center. I'm actually wondering what the date is today? Is it 30th? Okay. Tomorrow is my last day there. So today I'm representing them here to you with this research. And after tomorrow, then I won't be representing them with this research. But this research will still be published on behalf of them when the rest of the research is done. So anyway, I'm there. I don't know when my new job is yet. I haven't decided. Basically, I've been coming to Defcon since the second Defcon. I will slow down. Thank you. And I'm going to talk today about something that I just called the end of innocence because there have been a lot of changes in the housing with computer viruses since I started coming to Defcon. I also have this shirt, which I was going to wear, which the code breakers guys gave me. So since I can't wear it, I'll show it to you and you can pretend I'm wearing it. The front of it says code breakers. The back of it says justice for Dave. This is Dave Smith who says he wrote the Melissa virus who's facing a long jail time and a lot of big fine. And I'm going to talk about that toward the end of this presentation because this presentation is kind of about what is justice in a society where we don't really know the impact of our actions on our really widely distributed systems. What made me start doing this research now was I started reading things in the newspaper and in magazines. And this stuff really makes me nuts. I read this quote, which said, this case the company says, and I won't name the company here, but I will be in the paper, says that virus writing, that means writing the virus, is indeed illegal despite arguments to the contrary. I don't know about you guys, but when I see somebody telling me it's illegal to write something on my own computer in my own home, and it isn't indeed illegal despite what other people say, that kind of worries me when people start thinking that what I write on my own computer is any of their business. I get more nuts when I read things like this prosecution, that prosecution being that of David L. Smith, would be a decisive event that would tend to reduce the relentlessly increasing threat and result into risk of computer viruses to society of a whole. I read this statement and I thought this is based on how do I know that this prosecution is going to really reduce the increasing threat? Had there been any scientific research to show whether these types of arrests and prosecutions in the past have caused any reduction in the risk? Finally, while you get the idea, when I read by looking at the perpetrators, the cycle of mounting numbers rate and violence of viruses will get a positive reversal. What's that based on? Is that really true? So I thought well I'm going to take a look at what's happened in the past 10 years or so with computer viruses and I'm going to see if there's any scientific evidence that would support the premise that by doing this thing we're actually spending money wisely and this is really going to cause a decrease in the problem. A little bit about why I got involved with this. Back in 1985 to about 1991, mostly I was interested in DOS and LS9 which was a Tandy Coco thing in Unix Systems and it was a whole lot of fun and I got a PC complete with the virus and that was not quite so much fun. None of my friends could help me when I got the virus. I suppose that should say none of my hacker friends could help me with viruses because the two worlds are pretty far apart packing and virus writing. So I sought out the help of people who knew about computer viruses and this would be antivirus people and virus writers and that's where all my travels started. That's where it all started going kind of crazy. As I started talking to the virus writers I realized that the good guys were saying that the bad guys were bad but the bad guys that I was talking to didn't act bad and I should know because I talked to hundreds of them but they weren't acting bad to me. In fact they were being quite helpful and pleasant and polite. So I thought let's do some science about this. So I did the science to find out exactly if these guys were all bad and the paper got accepted by an organization called Virus Believing which is a magazine that talks specifically about viruses. Their website is www.virusbtn.com. They're very, very good from information about viruses and the A.V. guys did not like the results of this study. They did not like it at all because it said that the virus writers were actually not all evil, malicious, unethical, antisocial couldn't get a date if their life depended on its scum. So there I was with all these people in the antivirus world and there I was saying you guys are wrong and I was one of those kind of outcasts which I was talking about earlier. I kept saying this. You guys are wrong.  They're not all sociopaths. This is not true. They keep saying you're just as bad as them. But I kept saying the truth and the truth was that these guys were mostly good social lives, mostly guys that had good relationships with women mostly some really good, some not so good, just like everybody else. Guys who had good relationships with their parents. Guys who helped in social and community projects. Sometimes pretty cool guys although a few of them are pretty not cool guys but very rarely are they not cool. And they were within what we call ethical norms for the ages and they say, well, what's that ethical norm stuff? Basically that's how we describe in the science world of how people make decisions. You know, babies reason differently than kids and they reason differently than pre-teens and they reason differently than teens and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And to find out how people think we give them a series of ethical dilemmas they have to solve and they say, well, we think this and here's why. And series of tests with numbers, you know, how many different ways can you shape four colors? How many plates have you spin them on the end of rings? Did this and that? They take these tests and you see where they rank on these scales and there are norms for these. Biologically normal, what that means in case of virus writers is that they may come into this virus writing where it says enter here. They participate in the community for a while. They get interactions with other people who write computer viruses. They reconsider what they're doing and they age out. They begin to act like the older people who are going out and new people are coming in all the time cycling and write a few viruses. Some people stay, mostly just a big cycle going around and around and around. Now if this was true, somebody who was at level one two years later would be at level two and the next year would be at level three. The next year would be at level four. And when we watch all of these virus writers, I talk to some probably 80 or so of them. We watch them progress up the stages and how their cognitive reasoning abilities changed. So this was a long study which I did for a long period of time. And finally, we saw indeed they were going right up the scale. There were only a couple of exceptions, adults that did not age out and they tend to drift often to other more criminal activities instead of just writing computer viruses. Now what was next? I thought, well this is pretty interesting stuff. The press really liked it because we were seeing that some of the stereotypes weren't very true and things need to be reconsidered. And we saw that operating systems were becoming more common, you know, more one type. Connectivity was coming everywhere. So the old places where viruses used to come from, or what people said they came from, began to shift around. There was a shift in the zones going from, you know, people were looking at eastern blocks. They had connectivity. Then it was America. Then it was Canada. Then it was Australia. Now it's Indonesia. Where the viruses were coming from was changing. In fact, basically every place the internet came to, the viruses came from. So I don't think that's any, you know, big hard rock at science there. It makes pretty much sense to me when you've got a computer and you've got connectivity and you've got people talking about things. They're going to talk about things. They're going to do things. That's just how it is. But people, the reason they did this, it was still the same. People were curious. They wanted to do what they called research. And they were making political and social statements in some cases. Vactivism, not hacktivism, V because of virus. It wasn't just about technical stuff. And this is the stuff that really interested me the most. There were some very missed messages from the media. I mean, when you open the press from maybe 1992, the 93, 94, 95, 96, when you read about virus writers, you read about, oh, they're real renegades. They're real bad guys. You know, women might like bad guys. They're like, bad boys. So virus writers are bad boys. Let's be a virus writer. We're a bad boy, you know, and we're cool. And the media kind of promoted that, that it was a cool thing to do. They also promoted the idea that viruses were incredibly complex. You had to be a real genius to write a virus. Well, I could sit here and write one for you in about less than two minutes. This guy over here, this wasn't a fed. He could write one for you in about 30 seconds. There are some people, as I look out that I saw earlier, who could write them for you. And how pretty complex virus is in a pretty short amount of time. But it doesn't take a rocket science to be able to do it. In some cases, a little more complex. But you don't have to be a genius to write most of this stuff. You know, you just take some, write some macro commands. It's really easy if you get the, well, never mind how to do it. You can't do that. In some cases, it was taunting from the antivirus community.  You couldn't raise your left hand if your life depended on it. You know, I'm going to start seeing these left hands go up like this.  The next thing we see is viruses that do blah, blah, blah. There are also some technical papers written which, in my opinion, are more like how to guys for how to write certain kinds of viruses. Which means that virus writing tended to appear to be just a little bit less wrong to people. It appeared to be just a little bit cooler than it probably actually is. Which means young people aren't aging out. So we're seeing more virus writers and they're getting older. And because they don't age out, older people, people in corporations, just playing around doing what they think are some tests, which usually aren't very good tests and don't only help them, but people do like to play with computers. Pretty soon they're calling somebody to help them out of a jam. They say, oh, you know, I got this virus and I altered it and edit as a macro virus. And now it's spread throughout my company and my antivirus software doesn't attack. Can you please help me? You know, this has kind of created a few problems. And they're often calling me and I really need some sleep. I haven't had any really for three days. So if you're thinking about doing this tonight, please don't. And if you do, don't call me. But there are two viruses in particular that came to attention. Melissa and C.I.H. Is there anybody here who doesn't know Melissa virus? My C.I.H. virus? Okay. I like the skirts. I tried to make them look kind of like the virus. And Melissa, you're like a girl in C.I.H. Kind of oriental-ish. That was my creativity. There's a whole mixed message about this whole situation, which is why this T-shirt, this Justice for Day shirt, which I am going to wear, but when I tried it on you guys, it was going to itch, so I've got to wash it first. The Melissa author, David Smith, and you can read about him in lots of places on the internet, is wearing a really long sentence and looking at really huge fines for the virus that he admits to writing. But when you read reports of the C.I.H. author, which virus was much more destructive, he got a polite slap on the wrist, he got a good job, and the repress release is saying he's an absolutely brilliant above-average programmer. Now, this is a real mixed message and a real double standard, and it kind of says to me that in our whole virtual society and community as a whole, we don't really know what we think about this kind of stuff. And people are getting some real mixed messages. There are lots of people running scared because of all this, and these viruses are causing you, depending on who you talk to anywhere from $17,000 damage to trillions and billions, gazillion dollars of damages. People are running scared, and when people run scared, do you know what the solution is that they look to when they get really, really scared and they don't know what else to do? Not the bottle. Not the bottle. No, close. No, maybe they should be going for the bottle because their solution is lost. In this case, you get this case, the company says virus writing is illegal. The prosecution will be an event that will release or reduce virus writing by locking people up. It's going to solve the problem. Now, this is, I'm actually naming this only because I just took this quote before I came. Making a bomb is illegal, but writing about how to make a bomb is not. But what's a computer virus? The words are the bomb. And here we have someone on Usenet, and I've got the URLs, I could give them to you, to look up, suggesting that Congress look at making it illegal to write a computer virus. And I thought, well, how do we know that's really going to solve the problem? How are you going to force that anyway? And there's another follow. Mishka Behr, who actually is a good friend of mine, suggests that programs actually aren't speech, and therefore shouldn't be protected. So we have some pretty complex issues and pretty high-powered people pushing for ideas that may not have the best long-term effect. When we look at viruses in the world of Wide Web, we have people saying, got to get rid of them, got to get rid of them all. It's irresponsible. ISPs shouldn't let them up there. People want to make it illegal. But how do you know when something becomes bad? I mean, what point in the cycle of thinking about virus hurting somebody with virus does it become bad? Malice. Malice is a subjective judgment, isn't it? Intentional. Intentional. Intentional. Intent is kind of a hard thing to prove when you're looking at code. I could write a virus right here and give it to him on a disk, and I have no intent to harm anyone. So if all you have is a program to look at, how can you tell what the intent is? Now, even if it says, you know, this is a bad thing meant to harm, it may just be a demonstration. But do we know the impact of this potential law? I mean, how much have we actually looked at it? So let's say we're going to go through a series of things. I did a survey, or I had a bad thought. Is that wrong if you have a bad thought? And it's probably, you think it's wrong if you have a bad thought? Okay, close your eyes. Let's go and get this down thing. It's a bad thing. Again, let's solve her man to think it's in his heart. There he goes. So you have a bad thought. What if you told it to your friend? Is it bad then? What if you wrote it down on your computer? Is it bad then? What if you did it for a class project? These are all the same things you're writing. It's where you write it and make it a bad thing. How about if you put it up on your website, labeled as a virus so your friends can take a look? Is that bad? How about if you label it as a really cool, nifty disc utility so the unspecting will get it and hurt themselves? Is that bad? Maybe they shouldn't be on your website to begin with. How about if you password protect it when you put it up there? Is that bad? I decided that what I would do is I would ask people here what they thought about what is bad, what is as far as writing a virus, and what the impact of this law would be.  Have you choose a target population? I could go in people who are pre-open. Have you get a number of responses in a sample set that would give me statistically relevant data so that when I published it, anybody who looks at it from a scientific angle will say, well, this certainly is statistically significant. We need to take a serious look at this. I need to make sure the samples were chosen randomly so that I didn't get three people who were all together so they're already in the same place. We're grabbing people every so often as they come in. And I've done all that now, taken the survey data. I still have to do an analysis using a statistical tool and I'll probably use some sort of analysis of covariance and have to interpret the data, which I haven't had time to do yet and I'll do that before this virus bill conference in September. We have some interesting questions and here are the questions that we asked. We said, if it would become illegal to write self-replicating code, would you be less likely to do it, makes no difference, or more likely to do it? And so we got some really interesting responses, which I won't go into now, but I'll publish them in just a little bit. And how far would you go? I have a question here at DEF CON. Is thinking about writing a virus your limit of tolerance? Is talking about a virus your limit of tolerance? Is writing a virus your limit? How about if you let it escape accidentally? How about if you give it to friends?  And that was very interesting to read the comments on that. It's putting it up on a site clearly labeled. And I was actually quite surprised, because several years ago when I... I think it was last year when we did the panel hand viruses, I asked how many people thought it was okay to put a virus up on a VX site clearly labeled it, and a lot of people did. But as we started sampling people, many, many people, many more people than last year, thought that putting it up even clearly labeled was probably irresponsible and maybe not a good idea. Putting virus on use net labeled as utility, say sexy.xr, when you look at me.com or whatever, it doesn't seem to mess up someone's computer really bad. So these are the questions that we ask. And what we're going to do, as I started looking at this data, there was statistical relevance. The data is chunked pretty clearly into three very distinct groups with some pretty strong patterns that are starting to emerge. But I need to do a real analysis and correlate that if it were illegal data, with how far would you go data, to see if the level of what you find acceptable has any correlation with what if it becomes illegal. Would you change your mind then? So if you look now, the lower people's tolerances for posting viruses in public, the more likely they are to totally do a flipping change about if it becomes illegal and actually start writing viruses. So it's kind of a pretty surprising result as I sort through this data. I still have to interpret it and put it through all these complex programs and type in the numbers and it will do all these complex mathematical things for me. So for now, what's been the impact of laws on virus related incidents? I mean, we can look at the number of viruses that are actually out there in the wild. The number that the antivirus companies tell you exist, just say, we protect you from, you know, 500 gazillion viruses. Pay no attention to that number. It's an irrelevant number. What really matters, the viruses are actually out there doing problems and I think there were some viruses that circulated last year around here that have caused people some problems. The number of viruses causing the problems in the wild and chart the activity of post-arrest sentencing and the different press. On these four guys, there's a guy whose name I can't pronounce, which is why I didn't write it, Ann Smith. So we look at viruses. You see these lines here? This yellow line at the top represents the total number of viruses that have been found out in the wild reported to this organization called the wildest organization. I work with them, they get reports from like over 55 people that work out in the field with viruses. Users report to them, they report to us. This blue number is viruses reported by two or more people. Those are viruses that are actually spreading out in the wild. And the red and green numbers down here, the red is the new since the last time the list was published with green being normalized because sometimes we'd skip a month so we had to normalize the data. These are the important numbers, the viruses that are new every month. And if we look here, back over here and a long time ago, when Dr. Poff was arrested, we see that there was not really a drop-off in the viruses after he was arrested. We look here at when Christopher Poff was arrested and I don't know about you guys but when I look at that, it looks to me like it goes up and it never goes down lower any point on the time chart where it would look like it was related to that arrest. Get over here to David Smith. You see that it went up and it did come back down afterwards. People could have gotten a little shaky but oh wow this looks like, the noise is just pretty constant. There's really nothing that's statistically significantly showing here that these arrests and public relations have had any impact on the amount of viruses new viruses getting released that actually caused problems. And over here the C.I.H. also, after him not even zoom, obviously, they're going up all the time, they're not coming back down so it doesn't look like there's any clear pattern of these convictions and these high-profile arrests and these stiff penalties and all this other stuff they're talking about doesn't look like it's having very much of an impact at all. So I think it will be really interesting to see when we put this data together if people with a low virus tolerance believe a law against virus writing would increase the likelihood they'd write a virus. I think it will be really interesting to see what an appropriate penalty for this guy might be for David Smith and we did ask that in a different set of survey questions and that data is still being brought in and correlated. We've got quite a few responses there and the range of penalties people suggest he should get community service or he should get ten years of hard time. I can't say what my opinion is because it would bias the survey but probably you can mostly guess. If the number of viruses in the wide web for distribution increases, decreases are still the same after Mr. Smith sentencing. We started by using the Google search engine and looking for all the viruses out of virus sites when you type in viral, how many do you see with their actual live viruses? We found that about I think it was maybe 15% of them actually had live viruses so we're going to also measure that the same way after the arrest and sentencing of Mr. Smith which has been postponed several times now and we're hoping that it comes in August before I have to actually present this data. Now what do I think? And people ask me this all the time press people ask because somehow I've become this expert on computer virus writers I guess because it actually mattered to me how people are calling people names and putting out stereotypes that seem unfair about people that are always perfectly decent to me. People are looking for specific law as a solution to a big problem. I think that there's probably no scientific evidence at least yet to show that that law is actually going to help with the problem. From this data that we collected here it looks like there may be evidence to show or at least support the hypothesis that making these sorts of laws is a big problem. But you can really blame people when the viruses are causing so much problem out there to business corporations. I mean they want a solution. So what should the solution be? What do I think? I think that viruses are indeed very cool the first time you ever see how they work. I mean people say viruses aren't cool they're boring. That's because they've been doing it for a while. The first time you see a program make a copy of itself and do something like that it's pretty cool to go off with the responsibility factor of what you're doing. I think that virus writing per se and I'm not talking about writing of self-replicating programs in university or research environments but just virus writing and putting it up on some VX website. That's not research. That's not rocket science. It's not helpful. It's not about artificial life, artificial intelligence. It's not about solving any interesting new problems.  Viruses can cause really big problems and I think that it's irresponsible to make them publicly available because unlike we as explorers and tools which you will put them up and somebody can get them and mess with them and you're making a choice each time with the virus once you get it going it's like the gift that keeps on giving. You can't say oh I wish I could stop it now because once I thought that you can't control it it's going to keep going. But I think that doesn't have to make it a matter of law. Finally, and because I've gone so fast I think we've finished just about on time I really think that what you do on your own computer is your own business. But that's really only for now. In some countries it's already illegal to write a computer virus and one of those companies, one of those countries was in the Netherlands. I have a list of those countries on some research I did before. I've misplaced the paper which is why I don't have a list for you here now. But if you wanted to remain once on your computer being your own business you have to remember that you have to act responsibly if you're going to be experimenting with viruses and people are going to do it.  Because then you'll be giving scare mongers and people who want to stereotype viruses and people who write programs give them ammunition to go out and ask for laws. When people are scared and they see a solution they're going to grab a hold of it. So you need to really protect yourself by acting responsibly and don't give people any ammunition to put into what is your freedom because if today they don't like the fact that you're going to write a computer virus so they're going to say if you write a virus it's illegal.  So I mean if every time it's something they don't like becomes illegal they're doing however they are in power at the time probably would be a very bad thing. So if you act responsibly and don't just put viruses out there you're going to be doing everybody a good job and that's my really fast presentation. I think. That's it. Any self replicating program would qualify as a virus. Now I personally prefer a virus as an assembler just because I think that you actually had to write the program if I were going to prefer a virus. But the macro viruses I mean it's just exercises to me it's just exercises and stupidity. That is not a way to make yourself still so dust. You could hide yourself from the virus. Major breakthroughs that establish the way to better programming skills in that operating system. Now since I was involved in these things in the early 90s I really can't say anything about the macro viruses that are going out now.   But back in the 90s that was really important and people are making real good progress and doing amazing stuff with a set of them. Now I think that's really true but I also think that in those days the part of the programs that made them viral was simply find first, find next and you can do that on two lines of code. So I think you could have done the viral part I mean you could have done all the other parts of things that were done in viruses without making a replica. The replication was the trivial part as far as the programming. Viruses like the 4K that are basing the virus on the find first and find next. Not to mention that a lot of viruses were never actually causing damage they just proliferated and you got to take that into consideration not all virus riders actually saw inflict damage. I agree with you 100% that not all virus riders seek to do damage. I think that's one of the stereotypes that my initial research showed was true that in most cases it was intellectual curiosity or exercise in many cases people even who don't mean to cause damage don't realize the impact of what they're doing over the large scale. So even when the virus got out and before they noticed everywhere in many cases in early days it wasn't at all intentional I believe. I agree with you Yes in the very back Hi That that computer code is an expression of speech and is legal. Yes I am I talk about it in the actual research paper from which these were taken but there are people who are saying that viruses should be exempted from that protection but they should not be given the same form of First Amendment protection and you know not all speech there is it's speech there's lots of speech but not all speech is protected speech there are things you can't say or do legally things that aren't protected and it's really conceivable that if there's a strong enough push to make writing a computer virus a non-protected speech that could happen Not my idea dude Not my idea I'm just reporting the news Yes As landmarks of the past Similarities I think certainly one thing that I've observed over the past several years is that the hacker community and the virus community are kind of separate communities. You know there's some merging of the communities but the virus routers have tended to be at the lower end of the scale kind of look down upon because you know the stuff does damage even though we say you know we think it's not intended to do damage it's kind of like the sucking part of the underground technology so I think it probably will continue to be looked more down upon unless people behave more responsibly with it I think if people behave more responsibly with what they're doing don't just leave it laying out there where somebody can get it and it just keeps going. It's possible it might not have to be looked upon as unethical, unethical, malicious, antisocial act way in the back in the white shirt What is that law? Illegal to transmit a virus? I guess I'm a criminal I mean the people that work with antivirus stuff all the time we have to transmit the viruses don't we? How do we differentiate? It's illegal for me to give him one but it's not illegal for me to give some antivirus guy one it's not a matter of intent and who's interpreting the intent and I think that's where the real concern really really is I did talk about that a little bit I talked about it more in a paper and actually the papers linked to the new security focus website it's a link to that paper it's called When Worlds Collide and it's about the different views that the antivirus and the traditional security community have on whether or not demonstrating these vulnerabilities you know programs generally don't have to be viral to demonstrate the vulnerability you can demonstrate most of these vulnerabilities straight away the virus just it's it's the part that really is the problem because it gets going out of your control but there's a little bit about the differing views on information sharing and what's okay and what's not the communities actually just like the virus writer and the hacker communities have different models of how they behave the antivirus community and the have so far been pretty much distinct different organizations we're starting to see the antivirus acting as a function of the general security corporations we're seeing security corporations bring antivirus up under that so that it's all one thing which is probably good for the users the two worlds in my opinion never were separate but they have been separate we need to really work to bring them together because there's a lot of knowledge different skill sets in those two communities yes well I've been some work now with them a lot of us are trying to do some work with the folks at Microsoft and some of these issues and there really are effective ways of getting the changes made without pelting out five billion viruses everywhere you know I'd say try a letter first windows it's been working more than I think people are aware yes fortunately I think that windows probably isn't a virus it's not spreading so much anymore we're seeing more and more Linux systems it's probably a really good product it's killing it off that's my own personal view not that of IBM yes I guess you heard it right there David Smith is an excellent script writer known as Vicod and ES and he's looking at doing lots of time in jail for releasing a virus that he admits to having written as far as him being just a normal guy like everybody else most of my research anyway has shown that most people who do this stuff are just pretty much they could be just the guy next door anybody it doesn't take some special evil malicious horrible person it's not some guy sitting in the basement listening to Danzig all day and night you know it's just it's just a guy and sometimes it's just a guy at school a guy who works for an ISP could be anybody it's not double behind the door sorry I can hear you it doesn't self replicate it doesn't even install itself again one final question over there I think that in order to have a functional operating system you're going to have to be able to write at some place in the system and make copies and as long as you can do that you're going to have the potential to have a virus I don't think it's really the issue of operating system manufacturers I think that the culpability in the case of viruses lies in a lot of places it's what you do with the thing that you create and I think we need to look a lot more personal responsibility in what we do with our creations instead of looking elsewhere for who's responsible for ourselves obviously one final last question I don't know what everybody needs to do I certainly couldn't recommend any kind of action of holding operating system manufacturer responsible probably would be interesting to see what happened if anybody did but I don't know that anybody's doing that do you know you're not going to see Lancaster's act? why not? okay well if anybody has any questions about the research or the later research or this study this project from here will be on the DEFCON site probably and if you look at the IBM www.av.ibm.com the paper will be there or you can contact me I've got a bunch of email addresses you just type Sarah Gordon and virus and a search engine somewhere if I'm around if I haven't given up on all this insanity so thank you very much for coming and bye


A lightweight, protein backpack vacuum is a fast, efficient, and healthy way to clean. It takes just a few steps to set up the protein ProVac backpack with power nozzle. Plug the power cord into the vacuum at the back of the switch box, taking care to loop it around the cord holder. Insert the jointed end of the hose into the vacuum cap and feed the cord through the harness to plug it in at the top of the switch box. Assemble the two-piece wand and connect it to the power head. Place the cord into the cord holders and secure with the Velcro strap. Lastly, attach the handle and connect the power cord. The ProVac harness gives you a customized fit with an adjustable waist belt and sternum strap to evenly distribute the weight of the vacuum. The cord loop helps prevent damage, while plugging directly into the switch box reduces wear. During use, the patented flex-fit harness moves with the body for comfortable cleaning. The power nozzle kit includes tools to keep every area of a home clean. The vacuum's advanced four-level filtration improves indoor air quality by capturing dust, allergens, and pet dander. Quickly and quietly, clean architectural details, carpet, hard floors, and hard to reach areas. Triangle shape fits closer to the body and is less likely to bump into things. Protein sturdy filter bags capture soil, dust, and allergens, leaving a home clean and healthy. The ProVac vacuum backpack vacuums are comfortable to wear and quick and reliable to use. For more information, visit protein.emerson.com.


Hello and welcome to NewsClick. We are going to take a look at the economic survey which has been presented today and I have with me Poranjaya Gohar Thakurtha to discuss the issues. Poranjaya, if you look at the economic survey, of course it's early just been presented so it's different. And it's a full document. It's treat, take two documents but going through all of that, a quick glance at it, it seems to have set the first part of the economic survey, focusing on how Nehru and socialism was wrong and instead we should go back to our Artha Shastra as well as the Adam Smith's, the invisible hand of the market and how this is now according to the economic survey by shown by the few years that the government has been in power. So do you think that's a fair comment on what I see in the economic survey right in the beginning? I think it's a fairly good summary of what has been expounded in considerable detail by the Chief Economic Advisor in the Ministry of Finance is Krishnamurti Subramaniam. And a special attempt has been made to highlight what you and I would describe as right-wing pro-market capitalist policies and at the same time debunking the bad old days of socialism so to say and at the same time trying to offer a critique of all those who have been criticising the government's policies on whether or not our rate of growth of gross domestic product has been overstated, overestimated. They said no and they said government intervention actually undermines markets and hurts more than it helps. That's the chapter four, the headline and it says no we were not opposed to government intervention but what has happened is excessive government intervention then again without naming Ambani and Adani it says that the way forward is pro-business versus pro-crony and also by business rather than your business friends and who's a crony and who's crony because you see it just interrupted this point. The point is we are seeing concentration in the hands of few accelerating over the last 10, 15, 20 years. So this is not pro-market meaning more competition but it is pro-market meaning concentration of monopoly power in the hands of the few and that has not decelerated in this government in fact it is accelerating. You know what is actually important is what has not been said. So just as in the chapter, the third chapter which is pro-business versus pro-crony no specific instances have been made and let me just you know come specifically to certain points to highlight why what has not been said is equally important it says pro-crony policies as reflected in discretionary allocation of natural resources till 2011 led to rent seeking by beneficiaries while competitive allocation of the same resources post 2014 have put an end to such rent extraction. Similarly, crony lending that led to willful default when the promoters are collectively siphoned of wealth from banks led to losses that dwarf subsidies directed towards pro-development. It's as if before 2014 everything was terrible and after 2014 suddenly hunky dory everything is fine and I'll give you another example you know for instance he's trying to link what the complication I mean all the complexities of economics all the the regressions the equations to at the end of it Thali no means the economics of a plate of food in India begins with a court from the Rig Veda and ends up saying that if you look at what has happened between 2006-7 and 2019-20 then the affordability of a vegetarian Thali as well as a non-vegetarian Thali it's gone up by 29% vegetarian Thali and non-vegetarian Thali. Once again you're taking a big span because it suits you at that particular point to compare 2006-7 with 2019-80 but you're not looking at what has happened and what's also significant and maybe I missed it but I didn't find anything about inequality. Now of course if you say pro-wealth creators this question is not that the wealth creators are people working in the factories or other people it's really wealth creators aren't those who own the companies. Correct. But I'll come to this just a minute later. But talking about inequality etc leaving that out as you raised you know the key issue right now facing all of us seems to be the fact that there is a huge deceleration of the economy. Now that at least in the parts that we have read till now we don't seem to find that as a reference it is not that everybody's been talking about the slowdown of the manufacturing sector we also do not talk it doesn't seem to talk about the fact that we have stagnation in manufacturing if not drop coupled with inflation particularly food inflation coming back to your Thalinomics as it is being talked about. So this which has been for everybody the key issue the slowing down of the Indian growth story all of that is not mentioned and the other part of this that's an interesting part if you look at it also they're not talking about manufacturing they are saying service sector repeatedly the growth is going to go to service. You've touched on a number of points let's let me try and summarize some of the some of the points that my in the limited time I've had to go through the economic survey what it means firstly let's stick to this issue of growth they stick to the estimate of 5% growth it's the slowest rate of growth in the last 10 years in 2008-9 secondly it says that in the coming financial year that is 2021 the year that begins on the 1st of April 2020 the GDP growth would go somewhere between six and six and a half percent okay good nice optimistic production it also says and this is a hint over what may come when Nirmala Sitaravan presents a budget on Saturday the 1st of February the fiscal deficit may need to be relaxed to revive interestingly the same economic survey which otherwise it says you know we have to believe in the market goes back to Adam Smith and Adam Smith's epic treaties on modern economics written in 1976 talks about should be just creative destruction everything but says no things are bad therefore we need to increase the deficit now what is interesting it also says that private investment may get crowded on higher spending by the government on infrastructure so you know it's in that sense sticking to the classic right-wing view on what needs to be done to revive the Indian economy without acknowledging what has gone wrong in the last six years now or whatever what is the crisis currently not even addressing for instance it says you need to now reinforce assemble in India with making India and if you know the the president of India speech also talked about how India is a major assembler of mobile phones so I'll just give a quick statistic on this issue particularly of mobile phones you know the iPhone for instance is manufactured by Foxconn in China okay and out of the total amount of money they get four dollars in profits four to seven dollars in profits and roughly about two hundred dollars goes to Apple so assembling gets you a very small fraction of the total value and particularly for mobile is where the really the value is in software in the design in the chips and so on you know what Dr. Subramanian has said is he is at one level saying things that is music to the years of his political masters and that is the idea of wealth creations rooted you know he says in India's old and rich tradition ranging from Kautilya's Artha Shastra to Thiruvallu's Thirukulat which emphasizes ethical wealth creation fine that's all very fine and describes that as a noble human pursuit at the time when it comes to the chapter on crony capitalism it does mention name all it says that the survey makes the case that the churn created by a healthy pro-business system generates way to wealth than a static pro-prony system note that the survey contrasts two systems the arguments are not directed at any individual entity instead it argues for eliminating policies that undermines markets through government intervention even where it's not necessary for instance it's fine to say that you know I mean these are what are called motherhood statements and the Americans would say it's like motherhood and apple pie nobody can have any objections to it when you look at it blindly but what is important is what you've not said for instance the whole chapter on cronyism for instance doesn't talk about the telecom industry I haven't gone through the details maybe inside the details could be there the the whole there's an entire chapter which is which is chapter 10 and it's a very long and detailed chapter and it starts with an anonymous quotation saying correlation is the basis of superstition and causation the foundation of science and then it spends a lot of time doing correlation to debunking what this Dr. Subramaniam's predecessor the other Dr. Subramaniam that is Arvind Subramaniam had suggested that we might be actually overestimate our rate of growth by about two and a half percentage points and at the same time it concludes I mean it says yes you know in this context the setting up of the 28 member standing committee on economic statistics headed by India's former chief statistician is important nevertheless carefully constructed evidence in the survey must be taken on board when assessing the quality of Indian data essentially a lot of time and effort has been spent on trying to explain that actually you know we're not doing all that badly I am yet to come across how do you explain the slowdown electricity consumption how do you how do you expect the slowdown in the rate of growth of diesel consumption and what many economists are arguing that there is no I mean if your economy is actually growing at four and a half percent or even five percent it doesn't explain the rates of growth or in certain areas that decline in the rates of growth of electricity production and consumption and diesel the rate of growth of diesel so I mean there's a lot that perhaps I have to look at the time frame like at this juncture I don't want to say very much looking but we can only look at the big picture right now because it needs some time to de-parse all the things that have been said but what is missing here are a an explanation for the stagnation of the Indian economy and what the government is going to do except to say quantitative easy but reduce that the deficit will be allowed to grow that is one thing said in a negative way rather than the positive way secondly helping business because again you are not going to make interventions directly you're going to really be pro-business that's a pro-market that's what it says and the third point it does not seem to address the issue that you have stagnation now combined with the relatively high rate of inflation which you haven't seen for the past few years including food inflation which is a very important element now I have to look at the fine frame but what is interesting is all the once again let's go back to the motherhood statements that have been made now for instance it says that we need more reforms to make it easier to do business right underlying what are these start new businesses register property pay taxes enforce contracts remove red tape okay again excellent all good things you're saying but wait then look carefully it also says the weak global growth has impacted India it also says that the investments slow down in the financial sector so you know it's it's at one level acknowledging the problems but suggesting a series of measures which will actually take which would be just a repetition of the same policies now standard again for what to be created Mr. Modi our prime minister has said it has to be first created look at wealth creators with respect once again he goes back to the way we have allegedly we talked about that debunked all those things yes we talked about that but you know the other thing that it seems to miss out completely is that when you for instance decide to say remove what are called controls and remove state sector which is basically selling assets cheaply to others if you do that and you provide the business the so-called wealth creators with lots of funds from the banks you will get an initial rise because of obviously there's money flowing into the sector but it is not sustainable and it works out in terms of fall later which is what we're seeing right now and also the fact that there's a huge overhang of now debts with the corporate houses that the wealth creators are failing to pay and are being continuously bailed out now this part of the picture which is what actually Raghuram Rajan had raised if you remember in fact that was one of the issues that was there and even Arvind Subramaniam has talked about some of these issues he talked about the twin balance sheet crisis this is what Raghuram Rajan is saying you have a crisis in the balance sheet of banks as well as the large corporate instead what they are arguing is actually it's a detailed and unsafe very sophisticated justification of all that they've done so they said no no we're not arguing that we don't need government intervention but you know he talks specifically of two instances the essential commodities act it neither brings down prices nor reduces price volatility and then it comes to yeah but you know the essential commodities act is really a 50 60s creation when we have shortages right and then he talks about the drug price control order of 2015 he thinks it's not helped so in a way he's basically going on to say that government intervention eliminating such instances of needless government intervention will enable competitive markets and thereby spur investments and so forth so far we haven't seen that happen let's wait and watch let's look at the banking sector a little bit in order to justify the recent decision taken to merge on the bank he is critical of dwarfism in the banking sector and at the same time say we need to improve governments in public sector banks need for more disclosure of information to build trust etc you know what the banks have been disclosing in the balance sheet and what the rbi has been doing there's a huge gap and and this concerns not just india's largest bank the state bank of india but you know a whole lot of banks which are financially in a mess so also private banks of course like his bank so in a sense what we are seeing is that the modest endeavor of the economics away of 1890 he's using principles of behavioral economics as instruments of economic policy to have insights about human behavior and that's the justification for presenting what he called thalinomics and I'm going to interrupt to this point if you remember uh behavioral economics can lead to what what the itself itself demands correlations being mistaken for calling you know actually causation so if you talk about behavioral economics it's really correlations that you'll be looking at and not any analytical model of course let's wait and watch and go through the fine printing greater detail if this dr krishnamurti sumramaniam is justified in arguing as he said in the conclusion of the preference right up front where he says the economic survey has made a sincere effort to live up to the expectation of being an indispensable guide for following understanding and thinking about the economy I'm sure when you look at the fine print when you look at the statistics you'll find that those statistics don't always would not necessarily paint you a very rosy picture or are a bright picture of the current state of India's economy thank you apology I think I'm going to end with this what you just said that the economic survey becomes an humble attempt to craft a framework of policies I think they have much to be humble about if we look at what they have presented thank you very much apologies for being with us this is all the time we have for today for this click do keep watching this click and look at our economic survey follow-ups that we are going to do as we get more details of the same


All right, Microsoft acquired four studios. Did they you know what good for them? And you know, I'm happy to see them finally putting up a bit of a fight to Sony. You know, this is good. I think this is good In exile and obsidian they've acquired both of them Okay For not careful, we're gonna have a monopoly on our hands Double fine production so that time Schaefer that the psycho nuts. Yeah. Yeah All right. Okay, they're still going with those acquisitions. Okay Interesting Bethesda as in all of Bethesda, that's eight studios and all those IPs and they've just acquired all of them Bethesda Zeni max I Mean that's does this seem like a slippery slope to anyone else. No Your eyes I am just being paranoid. I need to just settle down relax, you know, this is how they come peace This is how they come peace No slippery slope. Don't even worry about I wear the same clothes every day because they're comfortable. Okay What do you mean Activision? What are you talking about? No, there's no way there's no way that's true. You're lying to me Acquired 70 billion. Yeah


The opioid crisis in the USA requires immediate action through clinical and translational research. Already built network infrastructure through funding by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, MEDA, and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NCATS, provides a major advantage to implement opioid-focused research which together could address this crisis. This article was authored by Linda B Kotler, Alan I Green, Harold Allen Pinkus, and others.


Live from Barcelona, Spain, it's theCUBE, covering KubeCon CloudNativeCon Europe 2019. brought to you by Red Hat, the CloudNative Computing Foundation and Ecosystem Partners. Hi and welcome back, I'm Stu Miniman, my co-host Corey Quinn, and you're watching theCUBE, the worldwide leader in live tech coverage of KubeCon CloudNativeCon 2019. Happy to welcome to the program a first time guest, Jeff Ferrer, who's the Vice President and Chief Architect of Small Business and Self-Employed Group at Intuit, going to talk about your cloud journey. Jeff, thanks so much for joining us. You're welcome, glad to be here. All right, so Jeff, the easy part of this is, I think most of our audience has probably heard of Intuit, but maybe give us that first setting of the, part of the group you're in and your role and then we want to get into that journey. Yeah, yeah, no, that's great. So yeah, first of all, thanks for having me here and I'm what's called the Chief Architect of the Small Business and Self-Employed Group. Intuit is about powering prosperity around the world. That's our fairly new mission and helping both taxpayers with TurboTax and QuickBooks is our other big project. So think of me as the Chief Architect for the QuickBooks Group. And so mostly for small businesses, helping small businesses survive through their first year, survive and prosper continuing on. Okay, and your charter there is that the infrastructure on there? You're not trying to help the world rid those malicious attacks of like, oh no, I got the new TurboTax and it didn't work well because disclaimer, I'm not paid, I've used it for many years and it's super easy for me. Yeah, so as a Chief Architect, I set the technical direction of the overall QuickBooks franchise, both the desktop version, which is our older version that has been around for 25 years and our QuickBooks online version, which is only about 15 years old and is our SaaS offering. And so I do things like choose technologies that we adopt. I do things like set what are the most important technology priorities, whether it's breaking things up into microservices, our cloud strategy, Kubernetes, going to cloud native, all that kind of stuff. Okay, so you are a member of the Technical Oversight Committee but we're actually going to bring you back a little bit later to talk about that so we'll get a pin in that. But give us a little bit as to kind of what led to this journey towards cloud and all of those pieces that you were just talking about. Yeah, so like many other companies with lots of legacy and lots of code that we've developed over about 35 years of existence, we actually started out in the early 2000s with building our own data centers, right? And it's very expensive, very ambitious, but at the time there really wasn't a public cloud. And so, but we realized that putting servers under our desks and stuff like that, we really needed to grow to a more robust data center. And as we progressed in that journey, we figured out we're not the experts at maintaining and developing all the complicated networking you have to do, reliability, resiliency. We had some outages, this is 10 years ago or so, where a truck drove into a light post outside of one of our data centers and took us down for a day. And that's just not acceptable for our customers. And so the public cloud was just starting out, AWS was a big partner with there and our CIO and CEO met with the AWS executives and really decided that we needed a great partner in public cloud that really was their technical expertise. And so we began this journey, mostly I would describe it as lift and shift of technologies and services that we already had. We had to rewrite a few of them to make them actually work with the cloud. But by and large most of our code is written in Java and that ports pretty well. So we started on that journey and really right now we are mostly running in the public cloud. We have a few legacy systems that are still running in our private data centers but we're planning on decommissioning those. And with the public cloud a journey we really have seen quite a improvement in our reliability. Our downtime we can fail over between availability zones. It's just been fantastic from our overall availability, recoverability standpoint. But what we realized during that journey was that the AWS native experience for our developers, while AWS is just an amazing, amazing partner, it wasn't quite the developer experience we wanted. And so we worked with them on that. And that's why we started looking at cloud native technologies. Things are developed by the community. AWS is part of the community as well. And so they were extremely supportive in our journey to want to, from the developer experience standpoint, really start to press on these cloud native technologies. Wonderful. As you went down that entire path, whenever a company goes public and they put in their S1 that they're doing some committed level of a giant deal with AWS, people immediately chime in with, oh, they could save so much money by building and running their own data centers. How do you stand on that particular perspective? So what's really interesting about our public cloud journey is it's not necessarily about saving a lot of money, right? And we realized that, and to it as a mature company, we're not a startup looking to shave every little penny off of every little server. What we really want is liability for our customers. We want awesome operations. And so the public cloud journey actually hasn't been a huge, huge cost savings, but it has been a huge improvement in all these other levers. So it does amazing things for our customers. And we're looking to cloud native as just another bump up in that overall thing where we get immediate mean time to recovery where things go down, things go wrong, and we get those pods and those services right back up and running. Yeah, can I elaborate a little bit about the application that you're talking about? Like when I first heard you say, we just lifted and shifted there? Yes, yes. Ooh, wait, a lot of times, that is when we kind of claw things back because it costs more than I thought or it didn't run as well as I thought. It turns out the main frame's hard to move because they didn't build an AWS 400 yet. It was something that didn't happen. So the challenge is there, and then connect the dots with that to what you're calling the cloud native piece of this as to what your application development looks like. So I'll use QuickBooks Online as an example. Massive property, over 4 million customers running on that. And it started out as our kind of our first really big foray into SaaS, right? And luckily at the time we wrote it, and mostly in Java, but it was written as this huge monolithic piece of code, right? And so millions of lines of code, you can imagine large memory footprints, all that kind of stuff. And so during our first, for public cloud, we just looked at like, well, we're not going to rewrite these millions and millions of lines of code, but we want to get into the public cloud. Lucky for us, EC2 instances, things like that can run those large memory footprints. But once there, we really started examining like, okay, what does this look like as microservices? Because when you have over 400 engineers working on a single code base, imagine what doing a release, a release is a ceremony, right? It's like this huge thing you have. It takes a many page calendar. Exactly, exactly.  And use that analogy. And that's where Cloud Native comes in because that's really what it's meant to do, right?  You write the code, you run the code. And so it just plays right into this ability to be very agile, give each team, you can imagine at a scale of 4,000 engineers, you want every little pizza team to be independent and do their own releases and not have to coordinate all with each other. So Jeff, which of the CNCF pieces are you using it into it? And I would like you to go in a little bit, like Kubernetes, a lot of people, it's like, oh, well, I want portability and it sounds like you're all in primarily on one public cloud. So that's probably not the first thing on your list. So help us understand the landscape from your eyes. So really it's about developer productivity. And that's, so yes, we do have this a very good, strong partnership with AWS and that is our public cloud provider. And so the cloud native technology using obviously Kubernetes, obviously, we're running Docker in the background for running the containers and all that infrastructure. We have our own open source called Argo, which we're using for deployments in the community. So we're contributing a little bit back to community as well. We're using Istio, an envoy as a service match to really secure the inner service communications and support all the routing and whatnot. And we're also leaning very heavily now into serverless technologies. So we rewrite our app QBO or QuickBooks Online as a stateful application, but we're realizing the power of having these really stateless small functions. And so we want to do that as well. And the way we look at it as Lambda is a fantastic technology for something like that. But the developer experience, we want the same developer experience for our containers that we do from our functions, right? And if you really think about it, it's just about deploying. It's how you deploy. Do I deploy into containers and in a pod structure like in Kubernetes? Or do I deploy to a functions as a service? It should run on the same infrastructure. And so, but from a developer standpoint, from the end developer that's actually developing the applications and services that our customers are using, we want the declarative infrastructure of Kubernetes. We want the ease of deployment and of operations. I mean, you can just imagine a development team not having to learn the huge depth that's behind that Kubernetes, that developer experience is just unbelievable and second to none. And you can imagine these teams sitting around, at lunchtime doing their release, something goes wrong, they're on the call. They're solving the problems for their customers, in fact, doing another release if there's any problems. And so that's where we really, really lean in heavily to these cloud technologies, so the cloud native technologies so we can get even faster at the developers. Do you find that making it more accessible and having a consistent developer experience has, I guess, broadened the ability of your developers to iterate more rapidly? Or is it more about ensuring consistency across the board? In other words, is it a speed value for you? Or is it more about just consistency so you can wind up deploying to multiple architectures? It's really about both. We see, you know, agility is often confused with speed and velocity, but we see that enabling a developer to release code to production in just a few minutes is extremely, extremely powerful to the overall velocity because what they're more likely to do is they're more likely to experiment, be bold, try new things, see if the, and then get immediate feedback for the customer. There's this experiment, experimentation loop that you want it to move as fast as possible. And so, not only that, but to your second part about the consistency, it's for a company like Intuit with 4,000 developers, you want mobility in your organizations and so you want someone to feel very natural going from one small piece of team to another and have the same tools, the same deployment architecture and the same thing, right? So you're not retraining them on a ton of different technologies. So, Jeff, you know, what could the ecosystem, you know, the partners you're working with, the various ecosystems, what could they do to make your life easier?   That is actually really top of my mind. We have a lot of teams experimenting with Lambda. We're running huge workloads in Lambda, but we're very much worried about this. If there's teams working on that and it's very fragmented, some teams are deploying Lambdas off their laptops, other teams are, you know, using CI CD processes. And so we want that experience to be consistent, secure and everything. And so as it moves to more production workloads, right? We would really like the Kubernetes and the CNCF or the CNCF Foundation to really have a story about serverless itself. I think it's probably more aptly called functions as a service or running functions. And I think a lot of the thing happens is that it's treated out of the versus. It's like, oh, I'm going to skip over that container to Kubernetes thing and go to serverless because it's versus, right? It's not versus. It's a choice for the developer. They're aligned. About do I want to deploy in functions, in short running functions, or do I want to deploy in containers? Everything else up to that point is the same. And so I'd really like to see, and as my role on the technical oversight committee, that's something I'm really focused on for the end users because I see that a lot in the end user communities. They're dealing with the same thing that we are on that functions as a service. All right, so Jeff, before I let you go, into it's an award winner. So congratulations on that. I want final word from you. Talk a little bit about the award and talk to your peers that might be, they've heard about Kubernetes, but we're into the, we've crossed the chasm in the majority, but that still means there's a lot of people that are still relatively early. What do you recommend to them? What tips would you give them? And start with the award though. Yeah, so we are extremely honored to be the CNCF end user award winner. We are, our cloud journey has been a really interesting one that came really out of a, also out of an acquisition that we did of some fantastic Kubernetes experts, about 14 of them, a little company called Aplatics that had this Argo project. And their mission was to make Kubernetes accessible to the overall community. And by aquarium, we left their mission the same, but they're really helping into it. And we're not selling, they're helping the community for free when they were charging before as enterprise customers. And that's something I'd overall recommend for the peers and the companies thinking about going on a cloud native journey is, it's about those people that you can find here at the conference, right? About those experts that you can hire, just a few of them, have them come into your company, explain these things, and it turns the entire company around. We now have hundreds and hundreds of teams going through and onboarding, we call it modern SaaS internally, onboarding onto this technology because they started out with that nugget or that kernel. Well, Jeff, modern SaaS, love the story. Thank you so much. And thanks for joining us. And we will see you later to talk about the TOC. Glad to be here. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. For Corey Quinn, I'm Stu Miniman, and that was Jeff Brewer from Intuit. We'll be back with lots more coverage and thank you for watching theCUBE.


The first homework assignment was officially due half an hour ago, but it got extended until Saturday morning or early. You have two more days. So you already did it. Remember that you get extra credit. If you do it two days before it's due. So you probably do something so far before you get the credit. In fact, any that you do this afternoon also weren't extra credit. There were a couple of people, but there were some people that had problems with the homework assignment. I want to cover a couple more things that you should know already, but it seems there are several people that don't. So where we left off last time, I think the question is a lot of people are happy with it. So where we left off last time, remember you don't find the area under some terms between say here and here and say there. It says chop this up into a bunch of pieces, say n pieces. So I want to go from a to b, y equals f of x. And then in this piece, I choose some point, let's say the point on the right.  The last point is xn. And then we just make the rectangle of that height, whenever the appropriate height is, these heights are negative, add them up. So that would be written as the width of each rectangle, this big, and the height of each rectangle is the function value there, and I just add them up. So for those of you that forgot, so this is the width, location needs, I mean factor out the d minus a. This gives me the approximation of the area. Now I take many, many, many, many, many, many rectangles, with the widths going to zero, lots of really skinny rectangles, and this is the area. So we have to prove that this is a given. I'm not proving this to supposedly give this in your last class. So this is defined to be the integral from a to b, that's limit. So I'll do this little job, add up all of these areas. These are choices. You're going to tell me which one's right, and then I'll tell you whether you're right. Is there an answer in? People like to answer one. That's good because they answer one with garbage. And very few people like to answer d, which is also good because that's garbage. 35% of people think it's b. So about half of you think this is the answer, and about a third of you think this is the answer, and the rest, like a and d. So let's, I guess, do this problem. These two are very similar, except this one has a one here, and this one doesn't, but we take the limit as n goes from infinity. It's infinity, but if we put the y's in infinity, then we're adding up. We have to have the width shrink and height vary. So that's why we have to go to n and stop. But then we take the limit as the number of slices we take goes from infinity. So in terms of the picture, it's kind of like this. As I take n bigger and bigger and bigger, these vertices can be skinny. So my picture looks like this. I'm going to 1 to 3. This has a 2 over n. Stuff the region from 1 to 3 into a bunch of little pieces. So how wide is any given piece? 2 over n. So the width here of each rectangle. If I move over, so for the first one, I move over one space. How far am I gone? When I start at 1, I move over one step. 2 over n. So x1 is 1 plus 2 over n. I start here at 1, and I take a step of the size 2 over n. There I am. And x2 is wherever x1 was plus 1 over rectangle. Which is 1 plus 2 over n plus 2 over n more. Which is 1 plus 2 times 2 over n. x3 is 1 plus 3 times 2 over n. And x22 is 1 plus 22 times 2 over n. So in general, xI is 1 plus I times 2 over n.   That was the law. And then I want to take the limit. Crazy looking notation is just a way for us to capture this item there.  The problem on the homework that I got about, yeah, it was a number between 1 and n. So here I is 1, and then it's here, and then it's 3, and then it's 4. So it's representing which rectangle? Here I is 1, I is 2, here I is 3. Since I don't know how many rectangles I have, I just have n. Maybe n is 100, maybe n is a million, maybe n is 5. I want to write the general rectangle for one of those rectangles. So I have to have it end on time.  It's also possible to go the other way. You see a limit like this, and you say what area does this represent. That question doesn't actually have a single answer. It's equal on the other way around. You already know that. But it also equals the integral from, say, 0 to 2. Here it's shifting my picture by 2. In this picture I'm thinking, okay, here's the log of x, and I'm going from here to here, and I want that area. In this guy, instead I have a different function. It's moved over by 1. Starting at 0 and going out to 2. Those are the same area. I've just shifted it over a little bit. My notion of what x is has changed, and I can write infinitely many different variations on this piece, but they're all the same thing. That's like saying, write the name of a student in this class. There are lots of different names in this class. There are lots of different integrals that this represents. They all have the same value. I'm trying to spend a lot more time on this. This is supposedly stuck in notes, so I want to move on. As I said, so any questions on this? Viewing these limits explicitly is tedious and nasty, so we don't usually do it just like we could just buy the limit. We earn some rules, and then we use those rules in the way we go, but to get those rules sometimes we have to be joined back to the definition. So those of you, well, I guess all of you, have probably already seen something that turns this into, that means the derivative of G integral from A to B of B of B, the absolute derivative that we can. So we know that this should not be used to anybody, I hope. So this is actually half of something called the fundamental theorem of calculus. We'll write it in a minute. The reason it's a fundamental theorem, or the fundamental theorem, is it interrelates two very big things that you do in calculus. It says that to do integrals you have to know about derivatives. You don't have to. Knowing about derivatives includes you know about integrals. Now if you remember, when I said last time, in calculus, is if we understand microscopic detail, then we understand macroscopic or full-size behavior. This is, again, a version of that because the derivative here is microscopic information. It says how is the function changing on a very small scale? We can relate that to how the function changes on a big scale. So one thing that we do in this class is we prove stuff. So we've got things in math. You can give a solid explanation to prove something. You can give a solid explanation of why it's true. I'm going to give a mostly solid explanation to give a solid view I'm going to gloss over a number of the details that are mathematically subtle. But why would this be true? Well we can do it in a fuzzy way. Does anyone have a clue why this is true? Well that's what the theorem says. Integrals and derivatives are opposite. But why? So, I mean, yes, it's true because integrals and derivatives are opposite. But it's like asking why is the sky blue? Well, because it's just many answerings. I mean, I don't even know how many answerings So, the sky is blue because the light that comes from the sky is blue. That's not an answer.  But it doesn't tell you why. It just tells you it is because it is. So, okay. So has anyone seen a proof of this? Okay, you just forgot. Okay. One more person in this room can see a proof of this in their life.  Alright, so why is this true? Well, let's think about what's going on with this integral. It's my function to chop it up into a bunch of rectangles. But let me not take the limit. Let me just do it at n. So we know that. So g, this is b. And this is n. This is g of xn. And I'm going to write g of x1 way over here. g of x, the one before. And that's true. So nothing changed. And then I'm going to do it again. But I'm going to do it again. I still didn't leave enough room. So I'll put it down here. And then I'm going to get down to g of x2. g of x2. g of x1 plus g of x1. So nothing changed here. Just did that. Those are certainly equal. Called the mean value theorem. You might be confusing it with the mean value theorem. Which you went over in your conference class because it's important.  Says that if I have a differentiable function, let's call it. So if g is a differentiable function, and it grows on some interval, then if I take two points from here to here, my two points which usually you call them a and b, but they're youth a and b. And the slope of the line through there is some point in between. At least one place. Just driving your car in the New Jersey Turnpike.   And they say you were speeding because you traveled 75 miles in one hour. You must have been going at least 75 miles an hour sometimes. The speed is the same as the average speeds here. We don't know when it happened but we know it happened sometime. He only speeded once, but he speeded. Okay, so that's what that says. Now why is that useful here? G prime, let me call it because it sits between them. So that means that G prime is at distance, right? This is the slope of the line and there's the derivative. The slope of the line there is the same as the average of the two names. Times G prime of C i is this difference. But I can just replace the derivative. This guy, since I'm going to take the limit times some number h, actually, I don't need to replace the derivative. I've confused myself.  I can't do this one. I can't do this one. I'm subtracting. So this is what I started with and this is what I started with. Oh yeah, thank you. Okay, so now what? I've almost stopped what I want because now I have a bunch of derivatives sitting there. I'm going to put this into an image. So that means that is going to be that first thing over times G prime and the second thing is h times G prime of C n minus 1. And the next one h G prime of C n minus 1. Well, okay. Now I'm going to take the limit and so this is the same as n going to infinity. Well, what is this? This is exactly something that looks like is the width of the rectangle. And G prime of the number of infinity. And this is the integral. Each of these guys with the slope of some places is equal to 0 so I'm adding up more and more and more and more slopes. So this tells me that I can just do that instead of just having definite areas I want to think of functions defined by things. Start somewhere here. I want here I get an area. I get more area. So this is actually a function. I can define underneath the curve. I go a certain distance t and then I stop. So an example of this position is velocity. The derivative of velocity acceleration you can think of this as being graph of the velocity and I want to know the position. If I drive my car at 60 miles an hour for one hour I know the position is 60 miles away. If I drive my car at 60 miles an hour for one hour and 10 minutes it's 66 miles away. And so I want to define a new function as the integral of the old one. So this is the integral from where I start not to t t of my old functions. To define a function the variable here is not where I stop. Not what I did in between. Fundamental theorem tells me well anywhere t is not enough. In terms of a picture this is telling me that the rate of change of the area is changed. The area here here is my area. And I took south area and now I move the end a little bit how much did this move so just the height of the function that's how much I would say width of this is just the height of the function are related. So but it's also extremely important let's how many percent of you got the right answer also this is not right so if you take the derivative and put it in that's almost the same thing 73 percent of you got it right for all stupid answers that's a stupid answer we're down to these two is the same as g and q squared we're going to do the j more so h prime of t g prime of g squared times the derivative of the way we go examples like this let me move on to find the examples the depth of recitation is important so let me point out one last things that you were supposed to know before you came to this class and that's how to do easy integrals either as definite integrals suppose I want to do the integral from 1 to 3 say that I just need to find a function whose derivative is x squared so a function whose derivative is x squared while the power here is 2 when I take the derivative of the power decreases by 1 so that I need a third power but when I take the derivative of the third power I get an extra factor of 3 that I don't like here there's no 3 signal so I just divide everything by which would be oops, what did I do wrong? this is x cubed over 3 and I plug in the values from 1 to 3 so this is anybody confuse by that at all? okay I have something that looks slightly different from 0 to 2 plus 1 squared the function's derivative is x plus 1 squared but it looks a lot like x cubed here because I say I wish this x plus 1 were really by the same amount and so that means that this becomes so in terms of u but x is 2 it was 3 because u is x plus 1 in terms of u this is u equals 1 so I'll say more about this next time it's important to write at least u these are akin to using the units inside dx is like meters now here I've just shifted by 1 so dx will vary