So I'm very honored to have today on the panel with us, Cristiano Amon, who's president of Qualcomm. Peter Tervish, who's president of industrial automation and member of the group executive committee at ABB. And soon we'll have Rima Qashy, executive as president and chief strategy officer of Verizon who will join us in a few minutes. So we're here today to talk about 5G. So far, and Cristiano, I think this seems to be changing quite frequently. I think we have about more than 50 commercial 5G networks that have launched so far in 27 countries and over 300 mobile operators that have announced that they are going to make investments in over 100 countries. There's also studies. I think you've updated a study recently with IHS that 5G will enable over 13.2 trillion US dollars in the global economic output by 2025. And of course, you've heard a lot about 5G. You know, it's going to connect everything and everyone everywhere. And it has the power to be absolutely transformational to our lives and to industry. However, behind all these wonderful opportunities, we hear a lot of concerns as well and some challenges that still need to be overcome. And they are from multiple angles. Once the user's perspective, you know, there is, there seem to be at least a public understanding that is not there yet of what 5G will bring to the consumers. People don't really know what to expect, what it will deliver to them. There are, of course, political and policy concerns. I mean, you know, it would have been hard to not hear about all the tensions we've been going through over the last 12 months, maybe even a little bit more, around security, around trust, but also around policy. You know, do we have the right policy framework in place to make a successful and sustainable deployment of 5G globally? There are concerns about climate change. Is it going to be good or bad? Are there misconceptions?  And finally, the financial challenges. You know, is the traditional business model, the traditional investment model that we've had for 3G, for 4G, going to be viable for the 5G world? Finally, at the intersection of all these things, there is also a fundamental question that, you know, I'm sure you've been coming across when you speak to governments around the world. We certainly have, which is, you know, whether 5G could potentially create a two-speed digital world. And this is really a concern for some of the governments. So, Cristiano, we mentioned, I'll start with you on this digital possible two-speed world. You know, this 13.2 trillion US dollars of economic output, who is this going to benefit exactly? And, you know, when we speak of this potential divide of two worlds, I think the concern is not, you know, the traditional economy, emerging economies versus developed world, but it's also urban versus rural. You know, we hear a lot about smart cities, but we never hear about smart villages or smart countryside so far. So the question to me is really, for you, is really, who's going to benefit? Are we, is it a myth that we may have this digital divide fervent? And what is the policy, the role of government in ensuring that we are going to have, you know, basically a sustainable environment? Very good. Happy to be here. I think there's a lot in there. So maybe I'll start talking about who's going to benefit. You know, what is interesting about 5G right now, it's no longer a unique technology to the wireless sector. It's also how you should think about the future of the Internet. I think it's been already decided. The last mile of the Internet is wireless. And 5G, because, actually, it's simply to describe it, it connects everything to the cloud in a reliable manner. It's going to have such a transformation aspect in the continual, you know, digitalization of the economy and it's going to influence the transportation manufacturing smart cities. And that's where the economic output is going to come from. And it's going to be an essential technology for the digital transformation of all of those industries. And fortunately, I would say fortunately, as we experience with 4G that the countries that took a leadership position was able to create digital economies and new companies and business models in a more advanced and competitive way than the countries that did not. What we see today is all developing economies are really focused and make sure they're not behind. The 5G is deploying across all continents at the same time. That's why you saw those large number of operators. And I think the economic growth coming from 5G is going to be associated with all of those industries that will be touched by 5G.  I just want to answer your other question. You had another question about whether we're going to live into a split in a world. And I don't think that's correct. And I'll say the reason I think those concerns are probably it's misunderstanding of where we start with 5G. We live in a connected world. I think that has been true. And I think we've been more and more connected. And 5G is really a true global standard, which has been deployed in all geographies from the United States to China, Japan, Korea, Europe, and many of the other economies also indicated they're going to be deploying 5G. And I think one of the great things about the wireless industry really reduced the distances. I think people are more connected from what you see happening to social media to how the companies get connected, how in general we're driving towards a connected society. And specifically to your question about if you look in communities such as urban and rural, I would argue that for the first time, now operators can have one single network to support both. As we move towards a converged network deployment, and also you started to see use cases on 5G for broadband, you actually have the ability to build on this concept that the last mile data is going to be wireless and actually finally deliver on the promise of a fixed wireless broadband that 5G will be the first generation to be able to deliver. But how is that going to translate for people who live in Africa, who live in least developed countries in Asia, in Southeast Asia? I mean, we hear a lot about industry use cases, about enterprises, do you think we are at the same stage that we were when we had 3G? Were the governments as concerned about 3G creating this digital divide that they are about 5G? Or is it because 3G in a way has broadened the divide in the sense between North and South? No, I think we're in a much better position. You know, I think we've been fortunate enough as our company to be part of every single wireless transition. And I think there is no question that what the mobile industry have done to bridge the digital divide has not been accomplished by any other industry. I think 3G phones and then later 4G phones have been first time that many countries, especially emerging markets, were able to have connection to the internet and be able to start to participate in the digital economy. Or argue that the scale of mobile is so incredible that the smartphone that you see today, it is actually mankind's largest development platform. And what I hear today, especially as you get into this dialogue about 5G and people say, where is it? Is it, can I get it? Will I get it? It's very different than what we saw before in 3G or 4G when people said there's really no use for this technology. So here about 5G is, why can I now get it faster? And the scale of mobile is so big, especially as this technology go to other industries, that I actually think emerging markets will have access to cost-effective technology faster that that was made possible on 3G and 4G. And if anything, 3G and 4G is proof point that the mobile technology can reach everyone. But who's going to put the investment in where maybe there won't be the return on investment? And then I want to also bring that question to Peter. So there are two fronts. So one concern is, or one question, is there enough demand? Will there be enough demand? Again, I go back to markets that are less developed in terms of investment from the operator side. The more if you are a mobile operator, are you ready to deploy 5G in some of the markets where 4G has not yet given you a return on your investment and probably not even on 3G? That's one question. The other question is, as we move on to 5G, IoT, industrial IoT, of course the verticals are going to play, vertical industries are going to play an increasing role and we need more cooperation. Is there enough incentive for, for instance, ABB or your competitors in other industries to invest in 5G? And what does that investment look like? At what sort of state of the value chain do you start investing? So maybe Peter and then I'll come back to you, Christian. Yeah, if I start on the industrial side, clearly technology, business models, and regulatory development have to go hand in hand rather than kind of one as an afterthought to each other because they have a mutual influence on each other. What we're currently doing and where we're currently investing is on the research and development in partnerships actually here at the forum. When you're in the Congress Hall, you can look at a partnership result that between Ericsson, Swisscom, and ourselves, we've basically used 5G technology and it's low latency, high bandwidth in a nice demonstrator that you can personally get your hand on and actually feel what it means and think about how would that have been with previous generations of technology. So I think that dimension is something I can really only encourage you to go look at. Of course, R&D collaborations are not mainly aimed at producing demonstrators, but they're rather aimed at for specific industry verticals and industrial applications that we see as particularly promising, be it that they involve mobile assets where you actually need the reliable connection, even though the assets are moving around, I think mining, both open cost and an underground, or be it that the low latency application enables you to basically work with humans, including haptic feedback and more generally to take automation from where it is today. So it's moved from isolated to connected with the previous generations of technology, but the collaborative, which is about not only connecting people with each other, but letting people and systems, people and algorithms achieve more together as part of the digital transformation, that's something where we see 5G technology as a key ingredient. So for now, we're not deploying capital in putting down infrastructure and see what happens. We're investing in research and development of our own, with industry partners, some of them end customers, some of them equipment makers, and we see that for where we are in the transition as the right point to invest, and then over time, as the business models and regulations evolve, then we see who invests in what other part. Chris? Very good, so I want to address your question about the ability to make investments in 5G in the operator, I think, of viability, especially as you look at developing economies. Before I do that, I just want to say it's actually refreshing to hear, Peter, it's one of those things that we've been saying since the very beginning. In any other generation of war, as you didn't have ownership of the technology by many other industry, that's a great example of how transformative 5G is, that we're not only talking about phones, I really like that. Let me address your question because it is an important issue. The operator market has, you know, it ranges depending on the country from highly regulated to less regulated, and it's a consequence of how the telecommunications have been. If you remove yourself from the unique situation of a single operator, I think there is now a broader understanding within governments, and especially the leading economies, that no country will benefit from being late to 5G or not having a 5G infrastructure. You can really argue that that is going to be in the best interest of the competitiveness of the industries in the economy as well as the evolution of the world as internet. And the network operators agree with you on that. I think all the network operators agree with that. Now, the question that you have is, 5G is in the category of essential infrastructures, no different than railroads and roads in the past and electricity, and it's going to be how the internet's going to work and not only unique for phones, but for the rest of the industry. So I think what you're going to see is an evolution of the models. In some cases, you see operators will be operating with different rules. You see a lot of more merger between operators so that they can actually be able to make investments. You see some other markets where you actually started to see, even in China, you saw that the operators are jointly investing in infrastructure in a shared network approach, and you're going to see operators diversifying themselves, changing the business model as they more and more get into the content business or provide different type of services, including supporting the development of private networks. That's part of the 5G transformation. So, and I feel that it's important to bring the attention for policy makers about the importance to really look into the need to build the 5G infrastructure and in that process to reassess the regulatory environment for the operators in order to enable the operators to invest. And then there's a unique thing, and I just want to maybe it's a little bit of a detail, but a very important detail. And if anything, it's a unique situation to regions like Europe and the United States. Every new rollout of technology, especially a technology that's 5G that requires the densification of the networks, it will need more sites. And one of the biggest issue that you have in Europe and the United States and many other developed economies is the ability to get permits. Operators are not well prepared to independently deal with municipality by municipality to get permit for sites. And that's another important role of the public sector to support the deployment of 5G. And if I can add to that, I mean, without going too far into the details of that one important question, the policymaking that we see being discussed differently also in different parts of the world is the question whether it should all be the mobile network operators of today basically operating those networks or if you actually have a large industrial complex, say a large chemical plant, a large mine, whatever other large operations, whether you should be allowed to also as 5G be your own network operator, whether you really need to buy that spectrum or whether like today, you can basically operate your communications.  So there's a lot to be shaped, but I think the opportunity is to be shaped. And I think that's the important thing that we don't stand back and say, well, many questions still, but there are things we can do today. There are things we can prepare for immediately tomorrow. And then there's some further questions that for the further rollout will be essential. So we were, I was mentioning at the beginning as well about security and trust. And if you look at studies, there's a prediction that there's more than 41 billion of devices that will be connected by IoT that will generate zettabytes of data to the amount that we've never seen before. So there are great concerns as well, that's whether the 5G networks, but not just the networks, the devices, the machines, if you really think end-to-end, how are we going to ensure security and resilience and build really a system, an ecosystem that is end-to-end resilient and secure? You would argue, we've heard from industry that would argue that on the contrary, 5G will make the whole ecosystem more secure and governments and the public on the other hand have more concerns. So I'll open it to any of you, you know, that's, what are your views on that? Yeah, if I look at it from where we stand today, my personal perception is that with the security that comes built in with 5G, we will actually, with the new technology, have an opportunity to have more secure systems. When I say more secure, I don't think secure is ever an absolute, there's always going to be trade-offs between the security, the usability, and the cost of any solution. But if you look in terms of replacing existing solutions that date back to a time when nobody took security considerations that serious, so maybe 30-year-old systems, if I can make that point, then you will easily find more security flaws and more open doors in those kind of technologies. Clearly, technology will evolve both on the security solutions as well as on the security threat landscape. So this won't be solving all problems for all times, but I think it is a progress that will be helpful, that will make it simpler for people to deploy solutions, including their security aspect. So while I'm not an eternal optimist as a realist, 5G will help us on security. Maybe if I can answer the question, what I'd like to do briefly, I think there are two topics, and I think you have to divide this in two conversations. One is going back to what we said at the beginning of this panel. Because 5G now touches many other industries, different industries have different security requirements. What you do, for example, in terms of department transportation and automobile and traffic safety, is where you think about the energy and the power grid, they all have different security requirements which require different trust levels. The other issue is, I don't think it's a concern. I think the technology in itself creates opportunities. How private enterprises and governments, what they do with the data that is going to be generated by the technology, that's what needs to be well-regulated. How data gets acquired, use an application. The technology in itself is actually an opportunity for good. Good. I would like to open the floor to questions if any of you have questions for Peter or Cristiano. Please, if you would like to introduce yourself as well before asking a question. I'm Kenji from Nikkei. When you talk about 5G, I think the big elephant in the room should be Huawei, right? Or the Chinese. If both of you could comment on how the Huawei and the Chinese are set to be dominating the technology or are set to sort of control the equipment market in a way, would you please comment on that issue, please? Maybe I'll go first. Yes, please. Look, the way I want to go back to the comment I just made. I think this whole issue about different companies and different suppliers, I think less than a political issue. It's more about the fact that 5G now touches many other industries and different industries have completely different requirements. For example, if you think of that, 5G is going to provide the IT infrastructure for the energy sector. That gets associated with a lot of what the countries believe as part of their critical infrastructure and national security. And each country has their preferred set of vendors and trusted suppliers. I think it's a natural discussion that happened independent of any company as 5G transcend the telecommunication sector into other sectors. The other thing is 5G, there's a number of companies innovated. I think our view is what actually makes the ecosystem strong and I'll speak from Qualcomm and our business model. It's not about one company doing everything. I think we have seen to the history that when more people can innovate, technology and markets develop faster than one single company or one single country. And I think that's the beauty of the collaboration and partnership model. That's the one we follow of our company about taking a horizontal model and allow other companies to participate. And we're seeing now a very vibrant 5G ecosystem, especially in countries like Japan and Korea, United States and Europe. You see a number of companies, for example, Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung, driving infrastructure in a number of companies building devices. And I think the reality is that 5G is moving at a very fast pace and it's not about one company doing it all. Peter, would you like to... I think that was so well said that I would only say I agree. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions in the room, please, sir? What was the densification, how do we have to understand as we see now the landscape with the towers, et cetera, if you talk about densification? What does it mean? Second part, first part, second part, you have public networks and more private networks. Will there be an overlap or how does it function? Can there be conflict between, do you have to manage both? Do they have to be linked or just the relation between public and private networks in the future? All right, maybe I'll start with that. So when I mentioned densification, when you start, when you should think, when you think about the 5G technology, and I like, it wasn't my example, actually this was first provided by T-Mobile, USA, a US operator, you need to think about the network of 5G as a three-layer cake. You have the lower frequencies, the existing frequencies that are part of the 4G technology, the existing 4G spectrum. Then you have new spectrum, which is in the higher frequency, like the 3.5 gigahertz, and then you have millimeter wave, like in the higher frequencies, 26 gigahertz in Europe, 28 and 39 gigahertz. As you go up in the spectrum, the good thing is you get much more bandwidth. You cannot deliver the industrial aspect of 5G, for example, without millimeter wave, that you get the ability to get multiple gigabits of speed or latency. But those stations, they look like Wi-Fi stations. They look like access points. And you need, they're not as big or disruptive on the landscape as a big tower, but you need many of them. And in order for that to happen, the network becomes more dense with those cell stations. And therefore the operators need to acquire new sites to build those. And that's what I meant about densification and the importance to enable that deployment. It's actually, at the end of the day, those new stations, contrary to what people think, they actually consume less power. They irradiate at a much lower power. The cell radius is smaller. The device uses less power and radiation, but you need many of those. That's the densification part. Maybe I'll start the other question on private and I'll ask Peter to talk since his company is really looking into a lot of the private. This is not new into the industry. It's just for the first time we see conversions. I'll give an example. In the telephone days, when an operator said, I'm going to build your telephone, many of the enterprises said, no, no, no, I'm gonna build my own PBX. That's my own telephone system. And then today, the enterprise has its own Wi-Fi access point. So we have the ecosystem in public-private. I think 5G is no different. The only difference is now the same technology is used by both, by the IT managers or the operation managers as the operator. And the good thing about that, for the first time, we have more than one company with the role of building the infrastructure. As the operators build in the public network, the industries are building the private networks. And that facilitates this process of densification that I mentioned before. But I don't think you're all right. Yeah, as a small addition to that, I mean, if you look at networks in industry, so private networks in the industrial case, going forward clearly, 5G doesn't mean it will be all wireless. The way to think about what 5G solutions will look like at the end of the day, they will be the right combinations of fixed line, of wireless cell network, as well as Wi-Fi, as an example, Wi-Fi 6 also. So these technologies complement each other. Each of them has their respective strengths and weaknesses and development needs. So things will get more powerful, less latency, more data, but they will not be the one thing that solves it all. It will be that you can basically create such solutions more simply going forward and that you have sort of more powerful tools in the toolbox going forward. So that's how I would see it on the industrial side. Fine, maybe just one more question quickly. We'll see. Please, go ahead. I just want to ask, I mean, Qualcomm seems to be the major victim of this sort of fight by the US government against Huawei.  You think this is going to be the norm in the future? I mean, the Europeans, I mean, they are pressured by the White government of Washington to make a choice, but they don't want to upset either Washington or Beijing. So they like sort of restrict the call of, you know, elements they don't want to manpower. So what is the way forward, I think, for even for Europe? All right. Thank you for your question. Nice to see you too. So here's how we think about this. Look, at the end of the day, you know, we actually have a partner relationship with Huawei, like many other Chinese companies have been, Qualcomm has been, you know, doing a lot of business and created actually a lot of growth opportunities for both, you know, the United States for a base in China. Actually, we are very fortunate in a way because our, you know, our company has been a stabilizing force in at least in the area that we operate between the two countries. Our business model has elements of intellectual property, you know, with our licensing program, protection of intellectual property, which United States like. He has import of semiconductors, but also has growth in China on one belt, one road, as many of our Chinese customers expand outside China. So even in the middle of the trade tensions, our relationship with China actually increase, including bring some of our Chinese customers to the United States, like OPPO and OnePlus selling the United States. So I think with that, I feel that at the end of the day, eventually parties will come to agreements about how everybody can participate in 5G because it is a global market anyway.


The Dow is down 432 at $31,445. The way I'm looking at it, it really has about an hour and a half in which to try to get to like minus 270 for later this afternoon in the Dow just to save the day. There are a lot of things that are suggesting, look, they're actually starting to improve. There are some things that are improving. This just wasn't what we would like to see off the yesterday's spectacular action. S&P is down very sharply, down 38, 84. Just give you numbers to look at starting to go into in the S&P. If the S&P at 8.0 is up 90 minutes or more, it's up to 38.65 and holding, I think we're going to very quickly test the 38.10 off right. This is the really most important moment you want to see this S&P start towards 34. I would even say that 39.5 have been quite soon. QQQ is even worse. QQQ has gone down, holding underneath 28.5 for about another 35 minutes. That'll be a very negative sign, so you're probably going to test the low to 80.21. You want to see a recovery happening very soon. High WM Russell 2000, very sharply down 573. Gold is holding very nicely. Gold is up 16 at 18.64. It's right on the 250m moving average. If it's able to turn the 250m moving average to a balanced zone, it's in line instead of a magnet, that's going to be really important at TLT, which is a very nice move to the ups at up to 66 at 109.25, up to 70. That's good. That means the economy is finally coming down a little bit. If you're making a crude oil, it's still holding very well at 10.65. Continuous contract up to 38.6. So that's it. Once again, both fixed index, the fixed index now in the 30s, that's 10.62. If it's off, it hasn't been some kind of a result to turn around. And while it doesn't pull back, it still starts to rally somewhat. Fixed index has to get to the 3570s. By the end of the day, it has to be in the low 20s instead of being very good. This is right at the moment where markets are playing games. And today, it's going to be very, very good. That wasn't very good at the start.


A living donor liver transplantation is a surgery where a deceased or malfunctioning liver is removed and replaced with a portion of a healthy liver from a living donor. Every year, around 500-1000 patients need liver transplants but only about 50 are donated from brain-dead donors. Pre-procedure, both the donor and recipient undergo a detailed, multi-step, health and psychological evaluation by the Manipal Comprehensive Liver Care Team. The transplant proceeds only when the team is satisfied that the procedure is entirely safe for the donor and provides maximum benefit for the recipient. A formal consent will be taken upon completion of the medical evaluation. There is also a legal process to be completed after the medical evaluation. The recipient is admitted two days before the transplant and the donor is admitted one day prior. On the day of the surgery, the donor is taken up for surgery first in most situations. Upon anesthesia administration, the donor surgical team removes a portion of the donor liver for transplant through an incision in the abdomen. The specific part of the liver donated depends on the needs of the recipient. Detailed planning before the operation would have ensured the specific portion of donor liver which has to be removed leaving behind adequate liver remnant for the donor. This process takes about 6-8 hours. Three hours into the donor operation, the recipient is taken up for surgery. After the anesthetic team administers anesthesia, the recipient's surgical team makes an incision on the recipient abdomen and proceeds to disconnect the blood vessels and bile duct of the deceased liver. The removal of the deceased liver is coordinated with the removal of the donated portion of the liver from the donor. The donor liver graft is placed in the recipient's body and the process of connecting the blood vessels and bile ducts to the new liver begins. At the completion of this part of the operation, blood is circulated to the liver and its adequacy confirmed by Doppler ultrasound. This part of the operation takes about 10-12 hours. The transplanted liver in the recipient and the portion left behind in the donor regrow rapidly reaching normal liver volume and function within 2-4 weeks in the donor and 4-6 weeks in the recipient. The entire living donor liver transplantation surgery needs to separate operation rooms, 3 anestheologists, 6 surgeons, 8 nurses, 2 technicians and numerous other staff to complete.


What's up everyone takedown here welcome back to another video today I'm extremely excited because I'm gonna be announcing two giveaways I'm gonna be doing here on the channel So this past year has been a crazy year not only with the ongoing pandemic But also here on the channel this past summer. I finally reached 1,000 subscribers and in September's video I did announce that I wanted to do some giveaways in the near future I just didn't know at the time what I was going to be giving away and how I was gonna have people enter those contests So I finally figured it out and I'm gonna be doing giveaways for two video games The first one is for the Xbox one. That is Pac-Man Championship Edition 2 That includes Dig Dug Pac-Man and Galaga arcade versions and I also have a ps4 video game For Deadpool now how I got these video games is if you guys remember when I already talked about them For my flipping for profit series to do on the channel one of my first episodes that I did I purchased a bunch of Xbox one games I have already made enough profit on this well over a hundred bucks That's this is going to be used for a giveaway instead of me selling it and the other game was for Deadpool This is actually the second copy that I own So whatever this was released. I never purchased it Lately it's been classified as a rare game because of the copyright music on it You can't buy it digitally anymore, which I guess makes it a rare game So I purchased my copy for $42 on eBay now this one here I found a week later at Ebay games for $30 I had the intention of flipping it on eBay because it goes from anywhere between 40 and $50 But instead I decided to use it for a giveaway here on the channel Because I think that'd be awesome to give back to all of my viewers and supporters So now how to enter for this giveaway? The first thing that you're gonna have to do is subscribe to the channel and also click the bell Notification next to it the reason for that is whenever I announce the winners for both of these games I'm gonna be doing it in a video in the next two weeks So you don't want to miss that video in case your name is called The next step is to simply like this video and the final step is to comment whether you want the Xbox one game for Pac-Man Or ps4 for Deadpool Simply comments Xbox one or ps4 and in a couple weeks I will randomly select two winners one winner for the Pac-Man game one winner for the Deadpool game And I will be shipping them to you free of cost So I'm really excited to not only be doing a giveaway But having the opportunity to do a giveaway and give back to my supporters. So thank you guys for an amazing year I definitely am interested. So like I said in the next two weeks probably two weeks from now That's what I'm gonna be announcing the winners for these video games so stay tuned for that you do not want to miss it in case your name is called and Whenever I announce the winners. I'm gonna give them 72 hours to Claim their prize to basically get back to me because I don't want these just sitting around forever and Having my viewers wonder if they ever were claimed so within 72 hours if the Winners are not do not get back to me. Basically. I'm gonna be picking another winner in lieu that for me keeps its Fair all around. I'm giving 72 hours for somebody to get back to me if they name is called So that's it. That's the giveaway announcement for the channel I do have other things that I want to do and maybe a few more giveaways later this year We'll see how this giveaway goes But I'm really excited to be sharing this stuff with you guys because you guys know not only if you're new on This channel, but I have a bunch of contact. I'm not really having one niche I have a bunch of different videos that I do everything from hockey cards video games Unboxings taste tests talking about wrestling hockey. I'm all over the board and I love supporting everything that I do So thank you guys for all of your love and support this year helping me reach 1,000 subscribers and finally allowing me the Opportunity to give back with giveaways So like I said to enter this giveaway like this video Subscribe to the channel and comments Xbox one or ps4. I'm gonna leave this video here I will see you guys in two weeks to announce the winners. Please take care. Peace


Thank you very much for inviting us and having the opportunity to show the view of the suppliers on the topic. So ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to explain our view on the future network care. And in the first part of my presentation, I will elaborate on autonomous driving a topic which is very exciting for our sector and where we are believing that we have achieved already a lot and we will accelerate in the next years to come. And in the second part of the presentation, I will make the connection to connectivity. First a few words about KLEPA. Since I believe it's one of the biggest industry in Europe, but also one of the most unknown or hidden industry in Europe, simply a few figures. We are representing roughly 3,000 companies which are generating 600 billion euros turnover, employing 5 million people directly and the biggest investor in research and innovation here in Europe. So coming to what is driving our business in cars, they are four big drivers, first urbanization. So still the trend, people moving from rural to big city areas is going on. So it's expected that in 2030 more than 60% of the people are living in big cities and this will have a major impact on how we will move in the future. Then there's the global growth of the middle class especially in the emerging countries. So this upcoming middle class will have additional income possibilities for consuming and investments especially will have an impact on our business. And then comes the regulatory framework where governments are going on in fact to focus on three areas which are impacting the mobility, that's the preservation of resources, environmental compatibility and safety. This has an impact on the consumer behavior, the behavior of the OMS and also of the suppliers. Then finally it comes also the behavior changes of the consumers so there will be the generation Y which has another focus than cars so they are looking at connectivity. The day for the car is more a tool than an excitement but we have also still the aging population of people who still want to continue to drive a car or remain mobility and also the increasing in fact emancipation of the population. So that's the pull side of the demand of our sector. There's also a push side that is coming from a technologist, disruptive technologies and so here's a list I do not want to go into details but there's one big disruptive technologies we believe will make a major change in our society and also how we do business in the future. That's autonomous driving. There is of course a link to cloud computing, to Internet of Things, to robotics and many others and I think I believe that autonomous driving will have a major impact not only on our business but on our society. And I think the next slide is showing a little bit what it could mean. So this is based on a study of Morgan and Stanley published in 2013 for the United States so stating that in total if every car would be driving autonomously then a total saving of 1,300 billion dollars would be achieved every year so that represents 8% of the GDP of this country. So that's big numbers, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong but I think the key message is strong. It has a tremendous impact on the society and if you are taking even this number and extrapolating this on a global level we will reach a number of 5,600 billion dollars each year. It's outstanding. And this is coming from major chapters like fuel economy. So already today we see in cars technologies like ACC so cruise controls which help to realize fuel economies if every car would have this device and then already we could save up to 20% only by this measure. And then by adding traffic management solutions etc etc this could be increased clearly. The second thing is and probably the most important is the impact on safety. So autonomous driving and it has been mentioned before will handle the 90% of driver failures we see today in our accidents and this will result in a big number like 500 billion saved each year in the United States. And then the third big chapter is in fact the improvement of productivity so assuming if the car is driving autonomously and only 30% of this time would be used to do something useful this will already lead to another 500 billion dollars saved each year. So it's enormous the impact on I think this will drive and motivate many of the market players to go in that direction. So coming to the technologies what does that mean for an autonomous car? What are the technologies we need? And the same there are five big chapters which we need to work on. So the first one is positioning so we need to know the position of the car and all its kinematics so what the car is doing. So this technology is already there has to improve it has to become more accurate etc. So the second big chapter is perception so in fact when you know where we are then you want to read in fact you the environment the infrastructure of course you want in fact also to recognize other road users including vulnerable road users and then making a clear distinction and to be ready to take the right decisions. The big third chapter is information so and there we are we are in the connectivity area so getting information from outside on top in fact what the car is reading by itself and and then at the end all this information for positioning information perception they have to be they have to be fused for the for the main reason that each of these big blocks has its advantage and disadvantages its limits. So by fusing all these these elements you can increase the quality the reliability of the entire system and then comes the most important the fifth chapter that's dex activation so you have in fact to make projections of your car in the near future so the trajectory in the case you are risking to have an accident and you have to go into scenarios in order to avoid an accident or to mitigate consequences this is even the most probably the most difficult chapter and there's another element which is not here on the slide a six element that's drive itself still he is in the car maybe you can call him as a passenger but still he remains for a long time a part of the equation so we need also technology in fact to know what is the driver doing is he sleeping or is he still able to take over a certain responsibility in case of we needing so we need also this this technologies and then of course the ultimate vision is that the driver is freed out of all these responsibilities but for a long time he will be a part of the of this equation so coming to these five six elements what is today feasible so in principle in theory you could say I can build up an autonomous car simply using the position and the information but that's theory that would in fact require that every car would be equipped with communication technologies the infrastructure would be ready at a ton of percent and then even you would not need sensors at all but that's the reality is a little bit different so we are not there and that's why we are believing from the suppliers that the perception chapter is the most important so we need to equip the cars with many sensing technologies which are providing everything which the infrastructure or the communication devices cannot yet yet provide then over the future we're believing that that step by step the weight from the perception is is is going away and will step by step increase on on the information side so there are many there are many hurdles to to come to this I simply mentioned a few ones so we discussed it before so user acceptance is very important because there are some people who like it and then and somewhere for really strange feelings about anonymous cars affordability so these technologies will add costs to the car the drive intention I did did mention before but a lot a lot of technical challenges are still to be done but we are positive about this but also we have to demonstrate that these cars are reliable and that we are gaining the trust of the consumers but also here I want to insist to say that for the moment cars are driven by cars and totally controlled by drivers and we have to learn to accept the world and the circumstance that 90% of the accidents are caused by drivers it's not pleasant but we have accepted it if not we would not climb into the cars and adusing this now if we are talking about the autonomous cars very often people asking me yeah but this is only then acceptable if the cars is 100% reliable so and my message is we are not very consistent on one hand today we are we are accepting a lot of errors by human beings but if we are going to automation we are demanding suddenly 100% reliability at the reality should be should be in between of course going step by step to 100% reliability of course but we cannot switch from from one direction radically to the other one in one day it's it's it's not reasonable and it's not taking a lot feasible today so then we're coming to the regulatory framework it has been mentioned before so the Vienna Convention I will not repeat it so of course we are we are looking strongly for the amendments of the Vienna Convention and also I want to highlight the very important work of UNVP 29 made on on this so we need an efficient global framework for this which is also in addition supporting innovation and and creating the public awareness and acceptance and for for these new technologies and enabling the stepwise stepwise approach to higher levels of automatic driving there are many other chapters which have to be solved it has been mentioned before civil liability even criminal law open chapters but also extremely important data production is another open chapter where we have have to make progress very soon so now coming back to automatic driving and its impact and now what is the the link to connect it driving and so I'm making also difference between information and then communication and then even the higher level of cooperative driving on the right so while the vehicle resident technologies targeting at casual avoidance can be highly beneficial vehicle to vehicle communication is an additional step in in fact to improve a safety of cars and to warn drivers about an upcoming a danger so we we to be equipped vehicles perceive saw as rats sooner than then sensors they can see around the corner they see at longer distances they can even see through cans through buildings etc so they open and tell me new possibilities where sensors I simply have have limits and also I think this movement from automatic driving to all these connected technologies will also change our industry the supply industry dramatically probably we will also see a little bit like in the communication industry mobile in the phone industry that we will have a divide maybe in hardware suppliers and software suppliers and those who were making the connections so we are also to to absorb this major structural changes within our sectors and having a major impact on the jobs required for the future a few words about connected and cooperative so what is the difference so I try to make a diva in a quite simple so there are many many applications you can imagine that you see with all this this but with these bubbles there are many applications possible around connected but I would say they are mainly targeted to make the life easier of of of the users and and increasing their comfort whereas the cooperative system so which is not only taking information not only communicating but also being part of of actuators so taking decisions they are having an impact in fact on traffic flow management but even more on safety so what is this at the current situation about connectivity in cash so today the automotive connectivity is dominated by by aftermarket devices it's a very important business for us the rolling out of new infrastructure is is a expensive for governments and therefore also slow and incomplete we see the regional differences they may hinder than the interoperability and also we see still today a big disconnect between mobile and automotive industry life cycles and the mobile sector brings many positive elements to connected care especially the ability to build an ongoing relationship with the customers I think we from the car side we have to learn for from from you on the side but also what we see is the payment models for how consumers pay for connected cars and not still not still develop in a satisfying way and so we need an in fact a new approach in a connected car how the relations between the automotive manufacturers dealers and customers are handled but also we need also new models between the operators and and the car for the car manufacturers so you connect the car will lead to new models of ownership and now I'm coming to the objective of connected cars with it as a proposal or as a source from the view of the suppliers so connected vehicles they should increase the market penetration with interoperable communication and it has been challenging so far for automotive or yams to generate much revenue from the connected cars to date so it's still a marginal business in our area and so it remains for the or yams and he is his challenge in fact by how to sell the benefits of the connectivity to dealership networks that's where he is focusing for for the moment and well as a value chain participants a little bit more frustrated because they feel a little bit excluded and then of course it was discussed before the big question for us is the the access and the ownership of the data so in our section it's not that clear who owns it so in some cases it's a system providers we think in the unit the car manufacturers they think they own the data because they are part of the car but also the consumer could say I'm owning it so it this is also for me not very clear and then the intelligent transport system is only possible if we achieve to have a representative quantity of data which is collected linked and and and and process so that's why also we we are in fact launching the discussion how these can be realized there technically so we we think that we need certification procedures from independent entities which approve that applications are safe reliable and complying with the necessary security levels and also we are just discussing now in fact in the need for an open platform which is more widely recognized as a part of a drive towards increased collaboration across the entire ecosystem I was described describing before so we also thinking that an open vehicle platform architecture will accelerate the market share of connected and communicating vehicles so to summarize a little bit the connected car is no longer an option for automotive OEMs it is a necessity but I will summarize in fact the success and and the speed how connectivity will will progress in the future to a simple equation so if we achieve together the entire ecosystem to create a sustainable connected car business grounded on collaboration and where sales can be generated for all the all the players throughout the value chains I think then we are on the right track


Yeah, but this is my last semester in school, yeah. So after USAU. But you have a new track and I could die. Yeah, have a new track. What genre is it really? I'll say it's more of a pop. More of a pop. Because I could hear some elements of Raga. Yeah. It's more of a pop thing. More of a pop thing. Before we premier that song here on the East Circuit, how have you been? Great, yeah. Since the last time, what are the challenges you've been facing? Because we were talking earlier, I don't want to mention them. I want you to mention them. You know, in me, it's the kind of thing a lot of challenges are. So different people, same different names. OK, let me try to make it easier. OK. There was this publication that posted something about you that you were not too happy about. You won't mention the name of the publication. But please do tell us the story from your mouth to them. OK, on most of the time, artists work in the industry. I know people love. I won't say they love. But some people are self-pity.  So, Sijika, when I was introducing myself, in Kona Fawkesima, maybe in Iluza Wituzango, I fire my music. Like a tragedy story or something. Yeah, but so when people say people like me, I come from a well-off family. As in, I'm not bragging about it and I'm happy about it. But when people say Ovena, Anatumia, the family money, to do this, to do this, I don't. I financed my own music. In Iluza Wituzango, not all my own music. So I was not happy about that. And it's not true, yeah. So just to clear up the, it's not true. Yeah, I do it. Even my parents were shangalic, you don't call us. So how do you do your things? I manage to do my own things without them. So next time, don't write bad things about me. Am I wrong things about me? I'm by sugar, my share. Sugar, my share. Sugar, my share. Sugar, my share. Sugar, my share. Sugar, my share. Yeah. So, Sajika, but how do you deal with such things, though? I can imagine you're over-whelming at times, yeah? Yeah, at times. When people are writing things, I'm saying things about you, which are not necessarily true. Yeah. It's not an easy thing, Jew. Even I recommended people to read it. So later, today in the morning, I just decided, let me get this magazine and read it. Yeah. So in the summer, the content was totally opposite of what I said. Yeah. So it's not a good thing. So they took your words and, yeah. Yeah, they took your words. Yeah, they changed it. Tried to change it. Yeah, and so many people... To suit them. Yeah, to their convenience. They're your magazine and you're thinking about it. So don't turn my image. If you're thinking about it, I'm warned. So... Milton... I'm sure Milton wants to know, is there a photo spread of your pictures there so that it gets the magazine? Yeah, yeah. Definitely they're going to use a picture of me there but it's okay. But you know, Venya, you're wearing a dress. Who dressed you? I missed you, Liza. So, Lando Liza, what is your style? I have a stylist. She's called Mwende. She's the one who dresses Mwende. Mwende, you're wearing a dress? Yeah, for my videos and the... anytime I'm making some public up there. She should be your best friend. That I'll find out as a Muzur. Okay. Now we're about to play Nakudai. Tell us about Nakudai. Nakudai, it's... I did that song for Boy Child, but just the message needed you. That's for us. Not just for you. That's for us. But you told us about it, but basically the message, it's for guys. Most of the time, people sing about women all the time. Nobody is singing about men. So now, people are following me. Like, 78% of people follow me, they're men. So I decided to do something for them. How do you support us? How do you support my music? I don't expect music. Music doesn't matter. Music doesn't matter. It's on YouTube. Nakudai is on YouTube. Everyone on every social media platform has Wavinya Williams, right? Yeah, at Wavinya Williams. So make sure you subscribe. Nakudai is there. Don't let her down. Music comes through on YouTube. Personally, I feel like it's directed to me. I don't know about you. No, we don't care about you. It's directed to me. So me personally, I think I'll put like a hundred views today. And Nakudai will repeat, repeat, repeat. That's why I decided to do the new track. So what's next for you? Big collaborations. Still, some of these songs will be a bit consistent on my music. So I dropped Pimpi Love two months ago. I'm back again with a new track. After two months, I'm going to drop another track. So do you want to do it after Amazing Billy, after Amazing Billy? No, it's still a bit more consistent. It's about an album. I will. I will. I'm sure the Boy Child will support it.  For real. My music is for everybody. It's just this song. It's just this song. I don't want to die. So music is for everybody. It's lessy. Maybe some specific songs. It doesn't touch a certain thing. But my music is for everybody. I think you are a boy child. I don't know if it's for Poly or Indicate. Yeah, yeah. Anybody can listen to my music. I'm a boy. So you can listen to it. So, I'm just kidding. I've been at Wavenia for two years now. So you know where to slide there? At Wavenia Williams on every social media platform. Wavenia underscore Williams. Yeah, on Instagram. Twitter. Williams Wavenia. Facebook Wavenia Williams. And YouTube is subscribed to Wavenia Williams. Do you have anything else to say? Do you have anything else to say on Instagram? Yeah, Instagram. Relax. Sponsor what she said. It's unique if you can do nothing from stock. As I decided to come through. Thank you very much. This is Nakudai Bay of Wavenia Williams.


I'd like to pass it on to a MySQL team for our first session, which is MySQL Overview for Oracle DBS. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, Machere. So my name is Ryan from the MySQL solution engineering team for Asia-Pacific based out of Malaysia. So it's just a short flight, two hours to Bangkok. So with me today is Ivan, you know, my colleague from Hong Kong. So two of us will deliver for session. This session is very introductory, right? It's targeted to people who have used database before. However, this is not a session to compare one to one, right? What is the equivalent command in Oracle to MySQL? And it doesn't also tell you when or why you should use Oracle or MySQL, okay? Any problem with that? But do ask me questions. Since we are small cloud, if you face any problems using some concept that you're not very clear, we are here to help clear the doubts, okay? So this talk is about major differences between Oracle and MySQL. And also to tell you one of the MySQL architecture for enterprise deployment, right? I think we shall talk about MySQL, how scalable it is, right? Do you use Facebook? Everybody use Facebook, right? So Facebook uses MySQL, right? So when Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook, actually he used PHP, right, PHP and MySQL. I recently just re-watched the movie Social Network and I think in the middle of the scene, Mark Zuckerberg was saying, oh, I need more server for MySQL and PHP, right? So it's an open secret. Before I go on, any question that you might have before coming to this section, what do you want to find out? Just to learn. You should be teaching. So I think if you visited our booth downstairs, we have a banner saying the top five for the website runs on MySQL. So these are some of the bigger, you know, businesses in Unicorn that using MySQL, right? You can see Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and PayPal that using MySQL. Sorry I didn't mean for you to get started. We ask everybody questions. Any databases that you are familiar with? What database are you currently using or you just come here to learn? Just asking what is your experience of using database? Sorry? All about verification. All right, so I think, yeah, this is a session to talk about, you know, the basic of MySQL and more example, right, how people are using MySQL. Now Oracle, so I'm going to ask you because you said you would use Oracle. What is the difference between database and schema? Relational and non-relational? Not exactly, right? What I know is, you know, database, it's a structure of storing data. And then schema usually is related to user. So you can create a database and when you log on to a database using a user schema, all the database are table objects owned by that schema. So schema, it's similar to user. However, in MySQL, we don't have that concept, right? So database is similar to schema.  Got it? So database and schema is not exactly as any difference in MySQL, right? So they are similar. So in MySQL, we don't actually have a user that owns a database, all right? Yeah. Yeah, it's similar. Okay, so question is, how do we clarify a table is owned by a user? So, yeah, as we said, we don't really have that concept in MySQL. So the way we do it is we grant privileges to a user. So whether it has a right to select, right to delete and update, okay? So it's not owned by anybody. So when we delete that user, that database is still, you know, accessible to other, right? We also have a concept of role that we can assign to user, okay? So how do you connect to a database, right? In Oracle, we use SQL plus and then you can connect to the database. In MySQL, we use a MySQL client, right, command line, right? DBA like to use command line. So we use MySQL client to connect to the database. So I can just quickly show you, oh, it's very small. So the default DBA user is root, but this root is not the same as your OS root, but the same name, but it's the DBA user. Okay, so minus P is the plot number. Usually this is a default that we use it to connect to the database.  So you log on to ready to the database, okay? Now, so we want to look at how many databases you have. So we have the two system catalog database called the information schema that contain the data describing the database, the metadata, we call it. And then we have the performance schema that keeps track of the different performance statistics of the table, how many rows of data table in the database. And then these are the user database, okay? So I have Ryan and then WarX, MyDB. And MySQL is the system catalog. So that's how you use MySQL to connect to the database. So I explained this before, the database isn't really owned by anybody, right? We create user in the database, and then we grant the privileges to the user so that they can operate on a database, select, update, or delete from the database, all right? And for developers or people who just want to play around with MySQL database, there is a GUI tools that you can use to work with the database called MySQL Workbench, okay? So it's a GUI, you can download, it's point and click. It doesn't, yeah, it's very easy to use point and click. It doesn't require you to know all this command at this time, right? So use database, show database, and so on. So it gives you a quick start to learn the database. And for you currently using Microsoft SQL Server, if you want to try to see whether you can put some of the data into MySQL, the Workbench actually have database migration tools that you could use to test out, you know, how the data, how to work with data in MySQL. Okay, so you can export data and then migrate into MySQL. Okay, so this is a bit busy, but basically I just want to show you the difference architecture between Oracle and MySQL, all right? So we have the, so in MySQL we have the system global area, the memory, the buffer, and we also have the on this structure, how data organize on this, in this. And then we have a set of server process that work with data, right? Accepting connection, writing data in the memory, and making sure data gets flushed to this. And this is very similar to MySQL, so we also have a memory for us to cache data after, you know, we read it from the disk. So this is for fast access so that we don't have to go to the disk all the time because reading from this is very expensive. Okay, so we use memory to cache some of the data. And in the disk, we have the log file to record changes in the transaction log. I recorded redo log similar to Oracle. There's a redo log to keep transaction. In case database die, you know, we use this to roll back or roll forward that transaction that's either committed or non-committed to the disk so that we can bring consistency back to the database, okay? Okay, so at this point, you understand a little bit about MySQL. How do you install MySQL, right? So you can either download from our website. It's called www.mysql.com. Depending on the different system that you work on, whether it's Windows or Linux and a different package installation, you could use YUM install or RPM or APT, or you could do TA to extract, you know, the table from the download into a directory of your choice, okay? Usually, we recommend people to use the TA table format if you want to deploy for production use, a serious production enterprise deployment. A couple of reasons. Number one is that you have more control, flexibility of using TA because you can create your own directory. You can structure your file system according to your disk structure, okay? Whereas the rest of the method, the structure of the data, the files, the file system is pretty much fixed, right? There's a default area that we keep the configuration file and also default for us to restore the log files. So if you want more flexibility, TA is the way to go, all right? Okay, so everybody knows MySQL is open source, Oracle, we own the source code. So essentially, you could use it for free. We have a community edition, which you can download and then use it for your own project or for your company, whatever application, all right? We also have a commercial edition where you want to deploy for enterprise use, for company who want to have somebody to support them, right? In case they run into problems. So we have a commercial edition. If you want to consider more enterprise capabilities such as backup and so on, right? So these are the enterprise capabilities that we put together in the enterprise version. So this is a subscription-based type of license where you subscribe yearly and then you're entitled for bug fixes, new features that you can download from our web to continue improve the database capabilities. However, you are free to use the database if you don't need that kind of features. I'm going to go through just a few so that you have a view of what's not in the community edition, which you can consider in the future if there's a need, all right? So we have high availability features, security encryption, and also monitoring tools for you to monitor the database how well it performs. And important is the support that we provide to you in case you run into a serious problem where data is corrupted, database crash, that you have somebody to guide you through how to recover from those serious issues. So just to summarize, these are the key capabilities of part of our commercial license. So we have authentication, we have encryption. We also have a firewall that protects your database. And we have audit to audit what are the activities based on user going to a database.  And very important is this backup tools, which allows you to not only quickly execute the backup quickly, but also to restore reliably in case there's a corruption data in the database. Last but not least is the encryptions of your data. So in the community version, data is kept as a text in the file system, in the disk. So if you keep sensitive data, it's good to have this capability to encrypt the data so that even though the data that the file is stolen from the system, people can't look into your data because it's all encrypted. To them, it's just garbage because you don't have the key to decrypt it to make sense of the data. So if you work with MySQL, which eventually you're going into designing high availability solution for MySQL, there are a couple of capabilities that you will use. One is a replication that you can make a copy of your data and then store it somewhere in another server as backup or for scale out kind of purpose. For example, if you have a main site having, say, 1,000 users, and you can have another server have a separate copy of your servers to serve other set of user. So if you have reporting requirements, you can have a replicated database for reporting purposes. So usually people use that for that scale out availability requirement. OK, so Ivan's going to talk a bit more on this cluster solution that we have. So I'm not going to go into more detail, but essentially what I want to tell you is that in the cluster environment, we have three redundant MySQL server that form a cluster. And then we have a router to route application to the active primary server using whichever connector that tied to your application. And we have a MySQL shell to manage and configure your clusters. And we have a MySQL Enterprise monitor to monitor the health of your cluster. OK, so backup is very important. In the community edition, there's a MySQL DOM utilities, which allows you to do a database export. It's not really an enterprise-grade backup tools. Essentially, it's just dumping out raw data from your database into a file which you can recreate later on if you want to restore your database. So for enterprise use, if you are familiar with Oracle, there's an RMAN that does that for you. So it backup the database files. So you can see a benchmark that we did is if you use MySQL DOM on a 37.3 gig database, it will take you four hours just to extract the data into a file. And whereas you use enterprise backup, it takes you a couple of minutes. And that's not the most important of all. The most important of all is the time you take to restore the database. Because when the database is corrupted and everybody is screaming for data in your production server, you want to make sure that your restore work very, very reliably and fast so that you can bring the database online quickly, not using the MySQL DOM 18 hours. So the other is transparent data encryption. We call it transparent data encryption. It doesn't require your application to do anything to encrypt the data because the data is encrypted automatically by MySQL. And when you select or read data from MySQL, that data will be decrypted before sending to you. So you don't have to do anything in your application, PHP or JavaScript to be able to take advantage of these features. Firewall is very important. Nowadays, we have a lot of hacking activities and SQL injection is one of the popular ones. So if you have a firewall, you can block those SQL injection kind of attempt to try to steal your data. All of it you can enable to record activities of user accessing your database. So to summarize, just to recap, is that MySQL is very popular. So it's very easy for you to get started, download, install. And not only that, MySQL is very scalable to web scale or to mobile application or any type of languages that you use. And with our Enterprise Edition, you can deploy reliably for Enterprise. So that's all I want to talk about as an introductory for you. Any question that you have? Who has any questions? Yeah, question. For the Enterprise version, it can have the fast query more than the commercial version. Because if I use the web app for the commercial, it has quite slow for the query database to show another data from the database to the website. It has the fast query, all the same. Yes? And Enterprise, yes? So your question is, does it compare with, I mean, the commodity versions compare with the commercial editions regarding the performance? Your question? OK, so performance 101 is you know the performance where the bottleneck is, then you can fix. And if you don't know, then it's just really dark and then you cannot fix. So to understand that correctly, first, the server, we have the monitor that you can dive in and that you can show what is happening and then fix regarding the SQL statement and as well as some long pluses. So it will tell you. So in terms of performance, one is actually people get involved and the system can notify where the trap and the performance problem is. And the second thing is, like the backup performance, which the commercial editions can offer a much better way of doing things. So I hope this actually gives you the idea so the commercial editions can build a better performance system. And on the other hand, developers worry about the developments of the projects on functionality, functionality. Whereas when a big corporations company, so the concern is not purely the so-called development and also functionality is how to apply, how to work with the so-called data. So they need the servers to be always up. They need the data to be always protected. They need the data to be managed and monitored correctly. So commercially people look at this can be a lot more than just the developers. So that's why you can see why we need to build a community additions to promote everyone to create like the long and people can still develop a lot of things on my SQL. Why we have the framework, PHP framework, Java framework, Node.js framework, they all work with my SQL because it's freely developed and freely to use. But big corporations, they don't want to manage by hand manually. They can actually do it more by getting the features. That's why we provide, we offer the solutions for big corporations to ease the pain. So I hope I can give you the idea why there is community and why there is commercial addition in the world and people still look for us and then we can offer service. We can offer not just sometimes when people look at why pay and pay is just only to support for people. No, it is not about just the support and people. It's actually different binary for my SQL, different binary. It includes packages. It includes the backup which can be always online backup. I hope this can clarify some of the myth of people using my SQL. OK, well, thank you very much. Sorry, we are actually running out of time for this session. Actually, we're already 10 minutes late. We'll try to cap it at 10 minutes late. And we have some great, that was a great question and I'm sure other people have some more questions. So Ivan and Ryan will be around during the break. So after this, you're most welcome to drop by the MySQL booth and ask any questions that you want.


Well, hello everybody. Thank you for coming. I want to start by thanking Professor Hoppe and Gulchan for having me. It's a very big honor for me to be here in front of so many people whose work I've admired for so long. What I hope to do is firstly discuss the military mentality and some of the thinking that makes it possible for so many people to sacrifice so much blood and money for an endeavor that I think almost all of us would consider clearly immoral, illegal, and contrary even to its stated goal, whether that be the goal of keeping us safe or the goal of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those words are from the oath of enlistment taken by all US military personnel. I'm trying to avoid the word service members because I know Lou Rockwell would cringe at that term. Secondly, I want to tell some stories from my time as a nation builder and some of the economic consequences. Some of these are things that I started seeing in a new light after I began studying Austrian economics. What I don't want to spend very much time doing is reiterating the libertarian case against war. It's already made very well, very clearly. I learned it from others, including from several of you, but for the sake of completeness, I'd like to begin by reading or citing three arguments as part of the libertarian case against war. First, Hermann Göring's testimony as recorded in the Nuremberg Diaries. Naturally, he said, the common people don't want war that is understood, but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. There is one difference I pointed out. I is the American psychologist who conducted the interviews and wrote the diaries. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States, only Congress can declare war. That's a good bit of comedy because since this was written in 1948, the United States has waged a war every decade, not a single one declared. Hermann Göring replied, oh, that is all well and good, but the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. Second, I want to cite something that Murray Rothbard wrote in a book that is available over there, The Myth of National Security. He wrote, the state takes care to aggregate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people independence upon the state for key services and fostering among the public the myth that only the state can supply these goods and services. In the essay he writes, the great Randolph Born realized that war is the health of the state. It is in war that the state really comes into its own swelling in power and number in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and society.  And third and last, I want to cite Professor Hoppe's devastating criticism that a monopoly on security will always favor itself at the expense of its clients. By its nature, it unilaterally determines the price of security and the nature of security. True security can only be private voluntary security. Subject to market forces, it would inevitably put a much greater emphasis on arbitrage and conflict resolution rather than on the brute force of invading armies. You can imagine that with private security, which we are voluntarily paying for, we would not have additional services such as the indiscriminate fire bombing of cities, the infecting of unsuspecting Guatemalans with syphilis, the setting up of brutally oppressive regimes, and the staging or provoking attacks against ourselves. Not to mention today's additional services of being fondled by TSA agents and our handful of wars in the Muslim world. I think these are the most important things which can be said about war. I'm just providing a little bit of illustration. I commissioned as an infantry officer in 2000 and joined the 82nd Airborne Division. We went to Afghanistan in 2002. In 2003, we went to Iraq. There, I had the additional duty of meeting weekly with the Council of Sheiks and helping them with their civil problems, sanitation, irrigation, civil security. Here's a picture of me looking at an irrigation canal. I was about 20 kilometers south of Baghdad and the Green Zone and I would always read about these multi-million dollar contracts going to military industries. I would always read press releases by all the technocrats and bureaucrats, but judging from just 20 kilometers away from this Green Zone, those people never even existed and the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City shed some light on their utter incompetence. I left the Army in 2004 and over the course of three years developed a profound visceral distrust of all things government. Then I received a letter in the mail calling me back for one more trip to Afghanistan and you can imagine how delighted I was to be retrained officially now in nation-building by the very same technocrats and bureaucrats who proved so useless in Iraq, whose job I was doing for them. I used to talk about this and I used to talk about how Iraqis would line up around the block to work for $2 a day pulling reeds out of the irrigation canal and I used to contrast this with how private industries, American industries, would contract to do the same job and their security guards would earn $1,000 a day. This is very interesting to me but it lapses into a discussion of how to conduct a military occupation when the important question is if we should conduct a military occupation. A question I'm often asked is what soldiers think about our wars and I'm not able to quantify this in terms of percentage but I think I know what the categories are. There are some constitutionalists and for them I have the most hope. While they recognize the state as a necessary monopoly on security they see the tension between our unconstitutional wars and the tasks they are doing. In 2008, more veterans and military personnel contributed to Ron Paul's presidential campaign than to all his Republican challengers combined. There are also organizations like the Oath Keepers who try to instill in military personnel and law enforcement personnel a respect for the Constitution. The second category probably thinks of the Constitution though they wouldn't say it in the way that most evening news anchors think about it that it's generally a little bit quaint and unsuitable to the modern world and some of them very genuinely see their job as good and noble and some of them are just seduced by it. I can say from personal experience that it feels great to hand out other people's money. When you're somewhere where the people are desperately poor and you get this flow of American tax dollars which you're controlling it just feels great. You're giving desperately poor people something they want. Additionally, you get this huge status with which many people have never felt before who were engaged in this type of work. Suddenly people hang on your every word. They come to you very politely, very respectfully. Although if you look closely at them you might see that where their people should be are little dollar signs. Incidentally, I bought this Constitution at the Jefferson Monument. I forgot it unfortunately but this is the same version and I was shocked to see that on the inside cover it begins with a general disclaimer. It says something to the effect of some people regard this document as important. Others think it's no longer suitable to our modern world. Nevertheless, here it is. It has historic significance or something like that. This was at the Jefferson Monument of all places. I think a third category of military personnel are somewhat indifferent to politics. Either they happily sort of punt on the issue of politics or ideology because they regard the state as more good than evil and they're happy to let themselves be wielded as a weapon by the representatives of the state. Also in the indifferent category are I think, and this I think is quite a few service members, they regard our wars as just another feature of the landscape whose creation or sustenance has nothing to do with their participation. It's just like another hill or a river and they make economic decisions to determine their participation. They take into account the level of danger, money, quality of life, personal development. That was a part of my motivation way back in 2000 and also the status they achieved. This has always been the motivation of soldiers. It's been evident from Thucydides onward. I want to comment about that last motivating factor, the status they achieved because this is very real. When I returned from Afghanistan in 2002 or from Iraq in 2004, I was showered with praise and thanks. I was offered free drinks and free dinners. At the time I was still a statist, however, I felt extremely uncomfortable by all the thanks I was receiving because the hero's welcome was given to me without any knowledge of whether or not I was completely incompetent or not. I happened to have been a little proud of how I'd served as an officer and including proud of the restraint that I had shown and I was getting this praise just automatically. They were giving it without knowledge of whether I commanded an infantry platoon or a desk. And it became very clear to me that the soldier, his role as a security provider is of secondary importance. Much more important is his symbol as a figure of national pride and national identity. He becomes an idol behind which all the nefarious political motives and all the hypocrisy can hide. The soldier becomes a rallying call in support of the official war effort. It's hard to imagine something similar happening with a private voluntary security agency. And I imagine such a mindset would be much, much worse if this was a war with a conscription where the propaganda must be even stronger. Now, of course, I view the automatic praise as downright dangerous that opens the door to all manner of tyranny. And more importantly, it allows for the systematic aggression against innocent people based only on their proximity to our perceived enemies. I did benefit from personal development. I learned a lot in the military. Nevertheless, for the most part, I consider it a fool's errand from which I thankfully merged unscathed minus just a little bit of hearing. I've also been asked a few times, including last year at the Property and Freedom Society Conference whether I consider insurgents nobler than soldiers because insurgents fight for ideology and soldiers fight for money. I perfectly understand the libertarian hostility to all things military but I disagree with this analysis and I'd like to illustrate that with a couple examples. I remember returning from our first combat mission in Afghanistan. It was a two-week mission in which we helicoptered to different spots trying and failing to make contact with insurgents. Incidentally, back then, that was before Iraq had begun so we had all the aviation assets of the military at our disposal. But anyway, after we returned, one of my fellow platoon leaders told me in a very emotional sort of way that on the helicopters he was having visions of Christians praying back in the United States for him to keep them safe. He was saying that he was thinking on the helicopter of all the difficult training we'd been to and he was expressing how proud he felt for the privilege of defending America. I might accuse him of being foolish, perhaps even a little egotistical but I would not accuse him of being insincere. He had his ideology too. From the other side, in Iraq in 2003 we would occasionally catch poverty-stricken farmers setting up rockets to launch to our base. They were being paid to do so and seemed to have little incentive for effective attacks. In fact, it was hard to tell many times if the attacks were even intended for us or not. So there are insurgents fighting for money too. Incidentally, later in the war the attacks became more effective and we learned they were being incentivized by things such as whether or not a Medevac helicopter showed up after the attack and I'm sure there's a dark joke in there somewhere about the power of prices. There's also the factor from both sides that young men simply like to fight. They want to know whether or not they're cowards. This is evidenced by me when I was in the Hawkeye Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Club. We would drive six hours to Milwaukee and pay a $50 entry fee to go into grappling tournaments just for the privilege of fighting under very restrained conditions. Now the libertarian instantly sees the line between such a voluntary contest and an involuntary one, but I think most young men do not which is why it's so easy to get a whole bunch of them to sacrifice themselves in foolish endeavors. Now I don't mean to be muddying the water on justice and morality by stressing the similarity between insurgents and soldiers though I do believe good people have sacrificed themselves on both sides of every military conflict in history. But I think you need a perspective of property rights and you need a paradigm where the individual is the center of action and the individual is the center of decision making and only then do the aggressor and the aggress come into stark contrast. If you work as most people do from this idea that the states are the actors then many people in perfectly good faith can conclude that a war between states is necessary. I think there's a libertarian case for the invasion of Iraq that you can begin but not finish, it falls apart. It probably begins by citing the systematic abuses of Saddam Hussein's regime and the sincere and desperate desire of many Iraqis to find an outside security agency to rid them of their dictator. In many places in 2003 we were greeted with cheers, grown men shook my hand and cried thanking me for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and in other places they shot at us, it was a very confusing time. Of course this case falls apart very quickly, it does not justify the size and scope of the invasion it does not justify the deaths of between 100,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians depending on which estimate you believe and the exodus of 4 million more it does not justify nation building, torture and the coercive means of funding our wars. I don't think it takes evil people to do evil things, it only takes evil ideologies now. Please be mindful of the possibility that I'm simply rationalizing and justifying my six years in uniform but I've given that possibility a lot of thought and I think I'm telling it to you the way it is. Please come to your own conclusions though. As further evidence I would cite the 1971 Stanford prison experiment. Out of 75 volunteers they picked the 24 who appeared most mentally stable, they made some of them prisoners, they made others guards and they had to call off what had been planned as a two week experiment after only six days because of outright brutality and sadism from the guards. We need market prices and voluntary patronage to restrict the production of security. Unfortunately this constitution is not enough. Back when I was a constitutional libertarian which was a position I gave up very reluctantly. I would point out that if we follow the advice of the founding fathers to avoid keeping large peace time standing armies and if we follow the constitution and force Congress to declare our wars we probably would not have had a war every decade for the past 60 years. I'll count them. Korea in the 50s, Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, various Latin American wars in the 80s, Gulf War I in the 90s and since the millennium Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and I haven't even counted smaller wars like Philippines or Somalia. Now the argument is technically true that following the constitution and the advice of the founding fathers may have prevented a war every decade though perhaps this argument rests on the assumption that a monopoly on the production of security is capable of following a document like the constitution. Nevertheless today I would point out to my former self that neither the absence of a large peace time army nor the requirement to declare war kept America out of World War I very likely prolonging the war and setting the stage for the rise of different flavors of socialism nor did it prevent America's participation in the Spanish American war what some historians consider the first big imperialistic war and the occupation of the Philippines that followed which I never even learned about in public school, I discovered it myself. Here's a quote about the American occupation of the Philippines from a Republican congressman who visited in 1902. You never hear of any disturbances in northern Luzon and the secret of its pacification is in my opinion the secret of the pacification of the archipelago he's speaking approvingly of this strategy. They never rebelled in northern Luzon because there isn't anybody there to rebel. The country was marched over and cleaned out in a most resolute manner. The good Lord in heaven only knows the number of Filipinos that were put under the ground. Our soldiers took no prisoners, they kept no records, they simply swept the country and wherever and whenever they could get a hold of a Filipino they killed him. The women and children were spared and may now be noticed in disproportionate numbers on that part of the island. This was done with the blessing of a congressional declaration of war. In my opinion the correct case against war and the only case against war must begin with the rejection of the state as a monopoly on the unsecurity. And I now want to illustrate the cultural Leviathan that stands in the way of this argument. I'd like you and in particular the Americans in the audience to imagine having a conversation with this man and imagine telling him, no thank you, I do not care for the service which you have presumed to have provided me with. Imagine telling him that you don't think the war made you more safe but rather less safe. Imagine pointing out to him that Americans today are eight times more likely to be killed by an agent of government security than by a terrorist. That's a very difficult conversation indeed. I think the myth of the state has replaced individual identity with national identity. It replaced local culture with national culture and individual pride with national pride. If the myth is ever torn down or if it tears itself down as it very well might many people I know will be hollow empty shells of themselves scarcely able to answer the question, who are you? I'd like to shift now and just talk about nation building in Afghanistan. This is the biggest population center in Kunar province. It's at the confluence of the Kunar River and the Pesh River coming in left to right. There's a very interesting place in Kunar province called the Khorangal Valley and I'm going to resist all my might to go on an anthropological tangent but it is absolutely fascinating and related to Rudyard Kiplings, the man who would be king. But anyway, the Khorangalis were timber barons. They used to chop down these gigantic trees and sell them in Pakistan paying the local warlord for transportation across his turf. In 2005-2006 we shut down the timber smuggling because we wanted timber trade and that made the Khorangalis very angry. Many Khorangalis and many American soldiers died in the Khorangal Valley which was abandoned last month I believe or at least they didn't use the word abandoned pulled back from. I would occasionally point out to my colleagues that the difference between smuggling and trade is who gets to cut the local warlord gets to cut its smuggling and if the national warlord with his national munglisha called the Afghan National Army gets a cut then it's trade. But it was like pointing out the unrealities in a science fiction movie. Everyone is mildly irritated for a while and then returns to watching the movie. The most impressive man I met in Afghanistan was a young man named Mahmood. We were on a mission to inspect one of the many schools we're building there. I think we're building, the average was around $200,000. That goes to one of my many principles of military service. Whatever the private sector can do, the United States Army can do more slower and for ten times the cost. But anyway Mahmood came up to me very cautiously and introduced himself and standing in a mud field surrounded by bare mountains. He started telling me about Windows XP and the types of processors he has on his seven computers and how he teaches classes in Windows XP PowerPoints and many other things. He is doing for profit what the mighty U.S. Army struggles to do for charity. Incidentally I couldn't buy him the generator that he wanted because we can't help private entrepreneurs. We could only build things that are sort of collectively owned like hydroelectric plants for little villages. Micro really small hydroelectric plants for villages. But in practice I think they were privately owned. They were just owned by the village elder. In any case I want to contrast Mahmood's computer school with the jewel in the crown of our reconstruction efforts which was this trade school. We would pay students for their attendance. They would learn one of five trades plumbing, electric, carpentry, masonry or something else. They got little hats which looked very professional. And the parade of dignitaries that came to our provincial reconstruction team were always taken here. UN generals, diplomats, ambassadors and under secretary I believe of the State Department who he might have been from the fence. And on the surface this looked great and it's very easy for good people to feel good about this effort. You have to look a little more closely to realize that this was costing the American taxpayer $50,000 a month. Hard to imagine. Although that figure almost surely went down because I wrote about it. I wrote about this and the Army is very sensitive to publicity. You could tell that there's no market pressure. The Army betrays its political masters by how sensitive it is to any type of publicity. Later during my time there I realized that there were three private trade schools doing for profit what we do as charity which had gone out of business because how could they possibly compete with the largest of the U.S. taxpayer. And I also came to appreciate something which should have been completely obvious but which I was very slow to realize. Students went here for political reasons. Students went here for political reasons and I couldn't believe how far I had gotten into this without realizing we would go to a place like the Carangal Valley where they didn't like us and we would tell the elders listen I know you're very angry about this whole timber thing. Why don't you pick ten people to go to the next class of the trade school. And then there was elders I'm sure would go to people in their valley who they want to influence and they would either trade favors or whatever else and send students here. Which is why our school had a moderate dropout rate. I doubt the private schools that we put out of business had a similar dropout rate because those students were sacrificing something to be there. This sort of central plan which we were engaged in which I was very slow to appreciate for what it was because you are giving desperately poor people some resources. But this was central planning detached from any kind of reality. It very soon became apparent that we were flooding the area with eager construction workers. Thankfully we dropped 90 million dollars worth of construction projects on the province so we could absorb all this labor. I almost fell out of my seat when I read towards the end of Murray Rothbard's essay World War I is for fulfillment of progressivism. He describes governments lost for big numbers because I went through a similar loss when I was engaged in nation building. The most absurd appetite for data came towards the end of my time in Iraq when soldiers for a brief while as part of their routine patrols tried to photograph all the Iraqis, all of them. They would knock on a door, take a photo, go to the next house. The soldiers knew right away that this was absurd and thankfully the leadership figured that out pretty quickly too. But anyway, it's difficult to measure all the improvement that all this building of schools and clinics and bridges is doing and the Army's aware of that and they discuss it often but there's no solution. This is central planning. It's divorced from any kind of market pressure. One of the things that they loved was the roads right here. This is the road we built in our project because for this they did have data. They counted all the shops in the bazaar before we built the road and after we built it, it tripled. So there were many metrics of verifying the road as an improver of quality of life for the Afghans. I was again astounded when I read Professor Hoppe's criticism that the overproduction of roads is a universal property of government for the purpose of moving their security forces because this was readily discussed as the alternative purpose of building the roads and there's a publicly available essay on this written by David Coole Cullen called Building Roads in Afghanistan where he's very explicit as we were that the alternative purpose is to move security forces. So I was astounded to see the theoretical prediction match the reality I had known. All our efforts certainly warp the Afghan economy in bazaar ways and this is very interesting to me though I'm not sure I would make the statement that it's a negative effect because if you're building things for desperately poor people it's still a benefit even though it's probably not how they would allocate their resources if they had them. I think I'm running out of time. This is me playing guitar hero in my room in Afghanistan. I used to be the drummer but our drums broke and we couldn't get replacements but I guess that's what they mean when they say war is hell. I've written quite a bit about my military experiences and you can read more on my website. I want to thank you all very much for your time.