Along with the many other currently unexplained feats of engineering present within the ancient ruins of Baalbeck's temples is undoubtedly the variety of ancient stones that were somehow incorporated into the structures. Although modern academia and indeed its supporters, who are all seemingly suffering with selective research syndrome, claim that Baalbeck is a Roman ruin, we feel, as mentioned, the sheer size of the ancient megaliths that were installed masterfully into its construction are obviously far too large for our Roman ancestors to have transported from distant quarries and who have installed into the structure. We are more than open to this proposition that they were indeed installed and built by Romans if we can be provided with one single logical explanation as to how this was done. As of yet, this remains elusive absent any academic explanation as to the site. As mentioned, the astonishing array of ancient stones is also an area that is rarely covered by individuals attempting to convey an air of all knowing to the masses, as these features are, just like the enormous megaliths present at the site, currently unexplainable. Specifically, it's the pink granite columns. The reason for our focus on these particular stones is the fact that this pink granite is only available at one known ancient quarry, that being the famous quarry of Aswan, located within modern-day Egypt, an astonishing 1,500 kilometers away. Some of these stones, weighing in at more than 10 metric tons, this achievement we feel is a clear indication of the fact that the builders of these ancient sites were far more capable than that of our more recent Roman ancestors. For example, as previously covered on our channel, Henri Léard brought two lemmasou weighing in at a similar size around 10 tons to London. This task took over 18 months of arduous suffering for hundreds of our modern ancestors, placed a mere century ago to complete. It included several near-disasters, and included loading them onto wheeled carts, complex systems of modern polis and levers operated by dozens of men, the utilization of over 300 men in total, a barge and a custom-built ramp to haul them up the steps and into the museum. How these same curators, historians and academics alike can continue to claim that our Roman ancestors completed such tasks, along with the placement of such enormous stone megaliths, is to us absurd. Was the unfinished obelisk found within Aswan the work of the same civilization? We feel that these pink granite columns could, in all possibility, be a link that connects these two ancient sites, and in particular, the Great Pyramids. Was Baalback, with its enormous granite megaliths, built by the same people as the Great Pyramids? Is the giant megalithic exoskeleton of the Great Pyramids, which we have already exposed, built with the same techniques as Baalback? We find the evidence to suggest such highly compelling. We have often postulated as to the precise age of the great monuments of Giza, undoubtedly the most astonishing structures left by the ancient world. There are many questions which persist regarding this ancient site. Who built these extraordinary buildings? Why did they build them? And of course, when was this unimaginably enormous task undertaken? Interestingly, there exists an enigmatic statue, which it seems, although predictably little shared by academia, actually predates this astonishing time within Earth's history. Quoted as, possibly one of the rarest finds of its kind, according to Dr. Clarence Epstein, Senior Director of Urban and Cultural Affairs at Concordia University, where this remarkable item is housed. Not only can no one date the object, but there also exists a language etched into its form which is yet to be deciphered. As Dr. Epstein acknowledges, no expert among the countless he has personally consulted over the past decade can identify the sculpture's age, artistic tradition, or indeed recognize and decipher the ancient language found etched into its base. Dr. Epstein believes the statue is of a pre-dynastic age. It was originally taken from Alexandria by the Deneacopolis family. It was then shipped with 20 crates of antiquities from Egypt and the Middle East to Canada, where it still resides. However, its whereabouts prior to this shipment are unknown. The statue is of two nude subjects standing 67 cm high, one male and the other presumed female. This figure is also noted as possibly holding a child. They are depicted in a sitting position with noticeable elongated skulls. Now known as the Starving of Sakura, this due to the figure's emaciated frames, just what could this statue represent or indeed be trying to tell us? How old could it possibly be? And most interestingly of all, what could the enigmatic writing upon its base actually mean? Because more research is undertaken. It is only a matter of time before we know its true identity, once and for all. In 1914, archaeologists found an astonishing location in Ganang Padang, in Indonesia. Two ancient stone mountains rest in this region, mountains in the form of pyramids, their size is truly massive. Intrigued by their shape, this 1914 team initiated a series of test digs in the small likelihood that they were man-made. The proposition of these two huge land features actually being pyramids, must have been virtually unthinkable to these initial explorers, their subsequent excavation also concluded that the site was indeed a natural formation. However, fast forward 100 years of technological advances in archaeology, photography, ground penetrating radar and satellite imaging, and we can now take much deeper looks at locations, gaining far greater insight than was possible a century ago. The archaeological societies are currently in a panic, in regards to an expedition which is being undertaken to this very site. Over 100 years after its initial discovery and disregardment. What is interesting to note, a detail this team must be aware of, a detail largely suppressed and rarely discussed, is the fact that very ancient monuments rest upon the tops of each mountain, monuments that were later dated that 2500 years old. And confirmed as artificial megalithic structures. The reason the archaeological community is worrying, is due to their possible size. They would dwarf the great pyramids of Giza. However, the pyramids, in Giza are in a very special location, they in fact rest on the center of the world's land mass, the question would be, why would Indonesia possess such ginormous pyramids? In 2010, geologist Dr. Danyinata Wijarja, who earned a doctorate at Kultek, recognized the mountains as possible man-made pyramids, and began to explore using ground penetrating radar, seismic tomography, resistivity survey and other remote sensing techniques, as well as some direct excavations and deep core drilling. The results were immediately intriguing, producing evidence of deeply buried man-made chambers and yielding carbon dates going back as far as 26,000 years. This would make the construction prior to the last ice age. Such ideas are heresy to mainstream archaeologists, the archaeological establishment in Indonesia banded together against Dr. Danyinata Wijarja and his team, lobbied the political authorities, agitated locally and succeeded in slowing down, though not completely stopping, the further exploration of Ganang Padang. However, Dr. Danyinata Wijarja fought back, doing some high-level lobbying of his own, taking the matter to the president of Indonesia himself. There were further delays to do with elections in Indonesia but just a couple of months ago, the final obstacles were lifted and Dr. Danyinata Wijarja and his team moved back on to the Ganang Padang site with full approval to go ahead with their work, including permission to excavate the concealed chambers. Although it may not be widely received, this excavation may be the most important currently being undertaken on Earth. Mainstream archaeologists are furious, and have been lobbying to get the work stopped, fortunately to no avail, preliminary excavations have produced results that prove beyond doubt, that Ganang Padang is indeed a man-made pyramid of great antiquity. Even the relatively young layers so far excavated, the second artificial columnar rock layer beneath the megalithic site visible on the surface, has yielded dates of 5,200 BC, nearly 3,000 years older than the orthodox dating for the pyramids of Giza in Egypt. They are also firm indications from the original remote sensing and core drilling work. That there is much older layers below. In short, it is now evident to all, that the site is vastly older than the 2,500 years archaeologists had insisted upon for decades. Even the most hostile are now quietly reframing their assessment of the site and referring to it as a gigantic terrace tomb, which was part of the biggest megalithic culture in the archipelago. I will keep you posted. There are many mysteries to be found within ancient Egypt. One explains seemingly impossible mysteries, which litter the caverns, tunnels, flooded underground layers, and indeed the once inaccessible passageways, only recently explored using advanced modern technology. However, some of the most perplexing mysteries lay in plain sight. Not only the great pyramids themselves, an obvious enigma for academia to explain the construction of, but many anomalous features, which can be found within objects often leaving academics baffled as to an explanation. The Cheops sarcophagus being one such anomaly. Although these pyramids are entered and explored by millions of people every year, and indeed this mysterious sarcophagus shown to many of these inquisitive explorers, what many of the funded academic tour guide often leaves absent from their explanation of this supposed tomb is how exactly it arrived at its current location. As we have explored and exposed previously, the casing stones that can be found on many of the pyramids are to us not only indicative of another phase of construction work, once having been undertaken upon these structures, but due to the erosion present and the different styles featured, are in fact indicative of more than one attempt to conserve these marvelous structures for future generations. Thus, one must conclude by more than one now extinct advanced civilization. As such, the age of the sarcophagus of Cheops could be immense, so it is not surprising that it has encountered not only grave robbers, but has been vandalized also at points within the distant past. Furthermore, and perhaps most intriguing and frustrating, is that the sarcophagus lid is missing, a lid that could have explained the past contents of this mysterious box, or like the Tomb of Pakol, exposed extremely controversial illustrations of possible past technologies. Unfortunately however, or rather most conveniently for academics, this lid has never been discovered. Yet what is most perplexing regarding this diorite box, notably one of the hardest workable stones on Earth, is that no one seems to know how the original builders managed to transport the box to its current location, deep within the bowels of Cheops. The diameter of this supposed tomb, being too large to have traveled down any of the known tunnels, which have so far been discovered within the ancient pyramid. This leaves us with two likely possibilities. One, that the diorite box was placed there, and the pyramid built around it, which is a mysterious and confusing hypothesis, mostly due to the lack of markings of significance found upon the sarcophagus, or indeed the lack of any dedicated markings found anywhere else surrounding it. It is as though the box was placed there without much effort to indicate any importance to its existence. Yet to cut such a box, which has since been discovered to have been cast from one single block of diorite, would have taken tremendous effort, a feat that modern man would only accomplish with the use of diamond-edged power tools, not to mention the effort that would have been involved in moving this multi-ton stone into its found location. The second hypothesis regarding how this sarcophagus found its way into its current location is that the box itself was transported to its found location through tunnels and passageways we are yet to discover, possibly hinting at the fact that within this great pyramid there are indeed many more hidden layers and cavities we are yet to explore or discover. Maybe the placement of this seemingly inanimate box was placed there to suggest exactly this. Furthermore, what was on the lid of this supposed sarcophagus? Why is it known as the sarcophagus of Khufu, when Khufu was not discovered within it? In fact, nothing was discovered within it. And why is the lid mysteriously absent? Where did the lid to the sarcophagus go? Why, if destroyed by grave robbers, was it not left where it lay? Did this lid contain controversial information, possibly pertaining to the original contents or indeed purpose of the great pyramids? We find the diorite sarcophagus of Khufu, and indeed its unexplainable journey into the center of the pyramid, highly compelling. When one explores the most fascinating and ancient structures resting all over our planet, you will inevitably be confronted by baffling feats on engineering and ingenuity, tasks that to modern math, escape understanding or indeed explanation. The main consensus regarding these ancient structures has always been a tricky thing to explain. To claim that these marvelous structures were built by primitive people with only primitive tools at their disposal does not only seem absurd to most who have visited such sites but ignorant of their true past grandeur and the specific characteristics of each of these places. Ancient sites such as Giza, Machu Picchu among many others still contain very confusing artifacts, anomalous evidence, which tells a very different story to that of mainstream history. Apart from the Baghdad battery, largely claimed to have been an ancient form of electroplating, there has been little in the way of physical evidence to suggest the use of electricity within the academically researched ancient times, yet there are many remnants left, which suggest such activities. Not only are there countless clear examples of past machine work stone, but most importantly there is evidence of errors made by these same tools, mistarts and discovered fault lines. These particular stones discarded, laid bare in the quarries, revealing all the hallmarks of the machine engineering that went into building these wonderful places, these artifacts, once rubbish, now historical treasures. They can tell you the shape and movements of the tools that were being used, showing just how these machines cut into the stones, core drillings also discarded during manufacture, and cut stones discarded due to faults and cracks, revealing the complete preliminary cut marks left by the ancient stone cutters. These fragments of past activities are clearly some of the most important in unraveling these sites' ultimate secrets, yet it is rarely shared in the public arena and even less frequently researched by official bodies. Along with this vast and perplexing array of remnants, mercilessly left where they fell, strewn amongst the debris of disruption, lay countless extremely hardy machine stone jars, vessels made from some of the hardest rocks on Earth. Some of these jars were made with a round bottom, perfectly machined, balanced on a base no bigger than the tip of a chicken's egg. Sir William Flinders Petrie ultimately realized that only lathe turning could have produced the symmetry and balance found on thousands of these bowls and vases.  In 1894 he founded his own archaeological body, the Egyptian research account, which later became the British School of Archaeology in Egypt. He stated, for example, a bowl maker attained curves of exact circularity by rotating the bowl around a fixed blade, and formed a lip by shifting the centering of the bowl. Their round bottom vase had walls of such uniform thickness that it balanced perfectly on a curved base. To have a very well respected researcher and specialist of the ancient Egyptians to admit to a conviction of the use of power tools in these pots construction seems like quite a stunning position to take, especially when one considers that while metal chisels could have been used to shape soft limestone within ancient Egyptian times, the metals that were available to them, copper, bronze, and during the 1st millennium BCE, wrought iron, were far too soft to work such rock into such exquisite designs. It seems Petrie would like to remain honest regarding his conclusions, yet also incomplete with his explanations, preferring to let the receiver of said information make their own realizations, preferring to avoid complication by a, by this time, rather visible enemy. We could only conclude that these relics, and ancient monuments thereof, were not the work of the Egyptians, but further evidence to suggest that these baffling structures were built far before the ancient Egyptians, before academic understandings by a highly technologically advanced pre-catechalism civilization. We find it difficult to see how such work was undertaken, or an explanation for our finding can be made without the use of power tools. Thankfully, the more we learn regarding these enigmatic places, the more we become aware of regarding their true history, and the closer it seems we become to finding those who built them. Along with the many other unexplainable feats, undoubtedly left by a highly advanced, highly capable lost civilization, there are the countless examples of extreme precision stone-cutting. Not only is this remarkable past capability visible in their many stone walls and fortresses alike, but also in their exquisite artwork. If we look upon the statues of ancient Egypt, for example, the symmetry, along with a proportional precision present within their statues, is not only perfection personified, but unquestionably far too advanced for the so-called academically claimed builders to have achieved. According to the academics, along with their subsequent supposed accurate writings, these extraordinary feats of artistic perfection were somehow created by a group of individuals who were merely equipped with copper tools. Not only is this claim clearly ignorant of reality, but to create such works of symmetrical accuracy was unquestionably the work of a group of individuals far more advanced than even that of the Victorians, let alone those who thrived along the banks of the Nile more than 3,000 years ago. Not only is this precision present along the Giza Plateau, but it is also found at ancient sites all around the world. Masterfully created statues and structures often carved straight out of stone bedrock with such vision and artistic prowess that many now presume that the individuals capable of such feats must have had advanced machinery at their disposal. Most of ancient India, for example, is created with such delicacy and exactness that we today could only accomplish the same with the utilization of modern machines. Furthermore, many scholars and independent researchers, even a number of highly recognized academic Egyptologists, have reluctantly concluded that many of the basalt, gypsum, and other vases shape from extremely hard stones, and indeed a number of multi-tons sarcophagus lids, were indeed turned into the shapes we see them as today, on some kind of ancient enormous lathe. This conclusion is made regardless of the fact that to create such enormous stoneworks on a lathe would have undoubtedly been out of the realms of capabilities for those who are currently claimed as their creators. Not only do the ornamental artifacts of Egypt and much further afield strongly indicate machined working, but there is also overwhelming evidence of these same machines, reminiscent of modern stone cutting equipment, present all over the world. But conveniently, it is quietly ignored by the same individuals who have supposedly unraveled the history of these sites. Puma Punku, Giza's basalt floor, other areas throughout Giza, Peru, Malta, the list goes on. All these sites not only indicate an advanced highly capable constructor, but also possess countless marks that, as of yet, we can only explain logically as having been left by precision, quick rotation, stone cutting machinery. They are yet another overwhelming collection of evidence, which not only flies in the face of current academic explanation, but proof of an advanced, now lost civilization having once been responsible for these sites' construction. They are highly compelling. Although there are many aspects of Cappadocia in which we have touched upon in the past, mentioned its apparent incredible antiquity and, to some degree, investigated and explored some handpicked sections of this incredible site's numerous anomalous features. However, there also exists, although considerably lesser shared, an equally enigmatic yet seemingly additional hidden past. A fascinating area of study, which we feel requires far more in-depth study. Cappadocia is seemingly home to more than one very ancient, now lost civilizations, littered with seemingly prehistoric ruins, treasures of antiquity, invaluable in our ongoing attempts at understanding our distant past. During the following synopsis, we intend to put forward sufficient evidence to suggest that not just one advanced, now lost civilization once called this place home, but that the site was once home to more than one extremely ancient, yet extremely well-preserved legacies from what we recognize as ruins left by varying civilizations. We feel that due to the site's location, it has, predictably, yet we presume reluctantly undergone substantial academic explorations, most possibly to create a permitted chronology, whether accurate or not, for the history of the site. With a rarely experienced buzz within mainstream circles, surrounding futile attempts accompanied with supposed explorations and explanations, for many of these still visually stunning yet utterly puzzling sites. With an alternative opinion regarding the site, however, one we often conclude to be logical grounded, accompanied by many examples of incredible artistic abilities, comparatively impossible to have achieved with the tools accessible to the academically-claimed builders. When often senses that many funded, obedient academics find themselves considerably out of their depth when it comes to producing a solid intellectual explanation for the many anomalies we highlight. Encountering almost impossible tasks in producing logical explanations for not only Cappadocia's almost inconceivably huge labyrinths of underground complexes, some so large they are classified as underground cities, each and all hewn direct from solid bedrocks, some to considerable depths, now understood to plummet hundreds of feet into the rock of Earth's mantle. The more impossible this task seems to become. The challenges involved in explaining, and most crucially demonstrating, how these mazes of tunnels and passageways were created and in addition secured. These ancient builders somehow utilizing enormous rolling stones that modern man would find to be a considerable and extremely effective obstacle, once painstakingly carved, transported and placed into their purpose-built ruts, somehow becoming a working blocking mechanism, which to this day we still don't fully understand how they work them, or even manage to unravel any logical technique possibly once used to utilize these incredible blocking stones. However, as previously mentioned, it is not just these incredibly ancient underground labyrinths which make Cappadocia one of antiquity's least understood yet clearly one of the most important ancient locations on Earth. There are many other parts of this enormous ancient wonder that many people are predictably little aware of, and the reason for this may soon become apparent. Although underground layers such as that of Derinkuyu have an appearance akin to the Neolithic Age, in other words displaying the scars of relics which are unimaginably old, although located in the open air and at the mercy of the far more rapid erosion triggered by weathering the site, and also display sections which show advanced stone-cutting technologies absent the tunnels, and was clearly created at a much more recent date. Which, unlike the sites which display extremely ancient ages, namely the underground cities, are seemingly from a vastly different time in antiquity. Hopefully, as the evidence and knowledge regarding said sites grows, we will hopefully one day fully decipher the mysteries of not only Cappadocia, but our own past as a whole. It is a subject which we find highly compelling. Many people from around the world have now, fortunately, been presented with and hopefully convinced enough thanks to platforms such as YouTube, particularly Egyptian constructional revisionists, to now realize that there are many, as yet unexplained feats of ancient engineering which literally drenches these magnificent structures and its equally mysterious sandstone plateau below. Yet we further expose many other indicative features, which were seemingly impossible feats of ancient engineering, which we hope has helped a lot of people to realize that there are many fallacies in historical doctrine, many gaps in academic and curricular understandings. Many things dismissed with flaky strategies and theories which have, again and again, thanks to modern computer engines, been proven as impossible maneuvers. It seems many people, and a considerable amount of money, goes into keeping a stranglehold over the pyramid's possible origins and original function, inevitably shrouding these structures in a veil of secrecy. In addition to the original pyramid blocks and the enormous megalithic exoskeleton visible in a few obscure areas of the pyramid's lower regions, we have also in the past put forward the hypothesis that due to the advanced nature of many of the pyramid's casing stones and the drastic differences in ages they appear to be, all made with the same type of rock, thus to display such drastically different levels of erosion, is undeniably evidence of them being installed at many different times. Yet although claimed as being built within known history, no documentation of the installation of the blocks, or indeed any explanation as to how these pyramids were built, all remain elusive. Several different styles were put upon these monuments, we feel, at vastly different times within antiquity. We posit that they are clear proofs of a number of past civilization's conservation efforts, but due to these compelling and visible proofs, one has to consider that the great pyramid's origins are vastly more prehistoric than could ever be publicly accepted. And due to these features having seemingly survived due to what we suspect was a number of considerable efforts to shield them from the environment by a number of different, extremely ancient yet all highly capable yet now lost civilizations, which we have identified in previous work as that of the Cyclopean civilization and the Polygonal civilization. But I digress. Many of you who have donated towards the channel and to reserve a book may be wondering when the channel's accompanying books will be published. However, I assure you, mystery history intends to go in depth regarding his and other findings surrounding not only the ancient pyramids, but also the many other compelling, seemingly impossible ancient legacies found throughout Giza's plateau and many museums, and many other controversial sleuth-gathered factors from throughout antiquity, creating the type of evidence-driven, visually illustrated examinational content in which the books will be exclusively focused upon. All of these factors are reasons why the books will not be written hastily, as my knowledge grows, so does my understanding of what makes ancient ruins so enigmatic, and I believe, the larger my research, the better the go-to guides will eventually be. I just wanted to reassure you that mystery history has not forgotten about any of you. Returning to our opening statement, however, many are now aware that there does not exist a valid explanation for the construction of the pyramids. Even if one had unlimited slaves, it is not a case of muscle, but rather a lack of space in which to utilize such. Yet what many who have not explored Giza and the surrounding connected ruins on foot are often oblivious of the astonishing array of ancient temples clearly dating from the pyramid builders not only lost for eons in the sand of the Sahara, but has preserved some in astonishing conditions. Ancient Egypt, its great pyramids, its eight-sided chiaps, its incredibly well-preserved, once-long-and-gulf temples, and the inexplicable stonework of ancient Egypt is but one of many areas from a world of ruins which we not only intend to unravel as much as possible, but it is an investigational struggle which we find highly compelling.


My name is Dick Kreisberg, and I'm from Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle. I work for ILIA, and in particular, I'm a software engineer, so you won't be hearing any interesting cancer results from me. This talk is more about our approaches to tool building, especially in the face of the challenges that TCGA data presents. So in this case, I want to talk specifically about visual analytics and how it pertains to the sorts of problems that we face in our work. We have these large heterogeneous data sets as ILIA talked about earlier, and we look for ways, advantageous ways to explore this data. The goal is to allow a person who uses our tool to quickly formulate testable hypotheses and relationships between different parts of the data or even external parts of the data, such as pathways and outcome. And I'd like to say right away that there's many excellent tools, aside from ours, and especially within the TCGA community, you have tools from places like UCSC and Broad and MSKCC. When we talk about visual analytics, there's a lot of things to keep in mind. A couple of them are, for instance, the first thing would be how we encode the information. So you might see in this slide, you know, there's a lot of encoding going on. There's color and shape and size and annotation. But the goal is that we want the user to be able to easily reason on what they're looking at. It needs to be as close to their mental model as possible so that they can, when they're performing these complex analyses and operations in the tool, the abstraction isn't so high that they're distracted by it. We also, in these tools, we want to manage the scale so that when we're viewing the data, it's cognitively and visually manageable. We don't want to clutter it or overwhelm the user. And hopefully, we can make it interactive so that the manipulation of the data allows the user to focus on the useful abstraction rather than how they're actually manipulating the interface. We would like to annotate, so provide additional information on demand, not upfront. Information like metadata, research, literature, error estimates and so forth. And then sort of the bigger goals are we'd like to connect the data to other sources and tools like the ones I mentioned before and place them nearby in the analysis and the visualization so that the user can gather additional evidence in support of their hypothesis. And of course, at the end of the day, what you want to be able to do is share this insight with others so you want to be able to collaborate and distribute and collect the different analyses and link them out to everyone else so that you can gather more and more sort of evidence. So quickly, the sorts of technologies that allow us to do this, you might call them emergent technologies, for us, the biggest one is the first one, the browser-based graphical rendering. So in the tools that I'll be showing again, much like the one the demonstration Ilya gave, we use SVG where the browser is rendering the image directly. But there's also Canvas and WebGL, which is a forthcoming standard that allows you to accelerate the rendering on the graphical card while still being in the browser experience. There's also cloud services that allow you to scale up your computation and your data management. And then new types of databases called NoSQL and those allow us to have adaptive data models. So often in TCGA, a new analysis is born and from it a new data model is created and it's hard in the classical sense with SQL to integrate those models quickly, the NoSQL technology allows us to do that on the fly. Also graph databases, they allow us in the same manner to be adaptive about the types of relationships that we declare exist between the data. And finally, graph computation is a new direction to go in where you can then reason upon the data, especially in our case that's structured like a graph. And you can do this in a distributed manner across large clusters of computers. So in this case, we talk about integrating data sources and then performing analysis, storing associations, bringing in other types of data and in the end visualizing it with tools. So in this one that I've highlighted that's a screenshot of the circular view from Regular and Explorer, the genome level view. And in my mind there's another arrow that sort of points from number five, the highlight one, back to number one because it's really an iterative process where the results are understood and internalized and then the user proposes a new data matrix to run the analysis on. Or a new analysis to run. So I'm not as brave as Ilya so I won't be doing a live demonstration. Instead I've just got some screenshots. So in this case it's like I said before the genome level view and this analysis is done with Random Forest created by Timo Erkula. He'll be speaking tomorrow. And it portrays around the periphery the human chromosomes and each node represents different feature types so the colors describe whether it's gene expression or methylation or copy number variation and so on. And as Ilya showed you can bring up the raw data which is critical for the user to be able to confirm or possibly deny the association that the analysis gave. And I want to emphasize that the circular view is very much a high level 30,000 foot view of the data. There's no particular one little insight that's just going to jump out by bringing up all these results. But it does allow the user to cognitively manage the data using filtering tools like the one that's on the right side of the screen and to bring up the data and iterate through it, paginate through it. So here's another tool in this case. The analysis is a metric that measures aggressiveness of tumors and colorectal cancer. And you can see on the right side there's a linear view which is brought up whenever you want to zoom in to the chromosome or subchromosome level and you're able to pan and zoom through the data and then you can see on there there's a pop-up and from there you can look at the data specifically or link out to other tools like the UCSC genome browser. And there's another one in this case, all pair of significance and in this case you can see the hovering bars would show more information. They can actually be brought up and pinned to the screen, you know, set off to the side so that you can sort of collect your data together and come back and look at it later. And finally we have the network view which Brady has a poster in the hall speaking more about but in this case we're talking about bringing together many different kinds of associations whether that's from protein domain mapping or the mining of medline or random forests and many other things. This is going to be more closely integrated with the entire tool set very soon but the idea is that the circular view is not ideal for many types of data and often what you really are trying to get at is the network, the topology of the graph itself. And that will be built up along with, I mentioned the graph computation earlier, we're going to, when our analyses on graph computation become more sophisticated, this tool is ideal for bringing in and reviewing those results. So in the future or in the near future there's a couple of other things I talked about, the emerging technologies of graph databases and graph computation and then what I'm excited about is the network topologies and exploring the very abstract topologies that can be created and you can begin to use them to possibly identify explanatory variables and drive further analysis in the correct direction by overlaying these graph outputs whether they're cross cancer or cross analysis and bringing in external information. But in a more concrete way we plan on soon adding explicit retrievable states so that for any given screen that you've brought up and you're at this point in your analysis and you'd like to share that with the colleague it's important to be able to just share that to them not send them directions about where to click and how and that will be just a URL based link. And also of course user data import is very, very important being able to bring in your own data and look at it in the context of other analyses or just simply for the usage of the tool and the benefits that it provides. So the website is up the explorer.cancerregulum.org the tool is open source hosted on Google code both the Regulum Explorer itself and the underlying rendering tools that create the visualizations that you saw. And we're always looking for more and more people to use it and give us feedback or even work on it with us. And it's very exciting for us. So I'd like to thank or acknowledge Ilya and then myself and Jake worked on the genome view. The network view is Andrea Eakin and Brady Bernard and the analysis was done by Vessen Thorsen, Sheila Reynolds and Timo Erkola. I won't go into all the acknowledgments but there's some list of some of the technologies that we've leveraged so far in creating these kinds of tools and our funding and so forth is at the bottom. Thank you. Any questions? Well, you probably are not expecting a question from me, Dick, but I'd like to ask and I get this asked a lot from people. Can people ask can I load my own data into Regulum Explorer? So do you see that being how do you see that happening that somebody would upload a data set or if it's a very large data set, presumably you would have to not move it but do it close to the data then? Right. So that kind of comes back to concrete and formalized data specification which we're pretty much at at this point and so if they wanted to match our format then yes we could provide some sort of either upload or be able to retrieve the data from them and display it but if it's a different abstraction on the data, a different data model, then it's also possible to take the tool, the underlying code itself and modify it quickly and provide it from their own side next to their data where it lives. Okay. No questions. Okay, if not, thanks again and I'd like to thank all the speakers of the session.


Hello everyone, this is Amit Dan of amitdan.com. Today I'll have another episode of Skyrim Global Wifi hotspot video and I'll be testing Skyrim in Dhaka, Bangladesh. If this is your first time or a pre-visit Thank you for your support on this hybrid channel. I'm always trying new and different ideas to take you beyond boundaries If you're into thinking outside the box, this is the channel for you If you're looking for more travel videos, there will be links to the reception box below So I take Skyrim Solace Light with me wherever I go and I try to do testing In that location and today we're going to be testing the Skyrim in Dhaka, Bangladesh So you see that I have the Skyrim Solace Light right here So I'm just going to turn this on. You can see it's on right now So we'll just wait to you know get the signal and I'm going to connect my phone and see what type of you know speed We get and outside you're looking at Dhaka, Bangladesh and I have many other videos from Dhaka, Bangladesh You'll find those under my travel playlist. So just wait a few minutes and then we'll you know connect it to my phone So it's still trying to catch the signal it doesn't have any steady signal yet So I'm just waiting for it to get a steady signal and then you can see that on my phone I have the Skyrim. So I'm just you know, I'll just connect it to the Skyrim once I have a signal So I have the Skyrim Connected to the network. The signal is steady So I'm just going to you know do a speed test on my phone and see what we get Okay, so you can see that I have the speed test up So I'll just hit enter or press go and see what type of connection or speed we get So it's connecting to the spy Skyrim Network to test the speed and let's see what's going on here Okay, so looks like we have a 4.14 mbps download and 11.6 upload but just to make sure I'll test again and see if we get the same consistent result or it goes up so it is connecting again and You can see here that Skyrim is steady and working Okay, I think it went up slightly So which is okay, and let's wait for the upload test Okay, so this time we have downloaded speed of 5.7 to Mbps and we have uploaded speed of 14.3 which is not bad So definitely Skyrim works in Dhaka Bangladesh and it's giving good signal. This is very This is in a steady and workable signal So you shouldn't have any problem using Skyrim in Bangladesh And I have a skyrim testing from other parts of the world Which I'll put a link on the screen and I'll see in the next video. Thank you for watching