Alright the men's draw it is officially out for the French over the second slam of the year There's a lot of players playing a lot of good players playing, but there's some big names playing not playing So let's go to the withdrawal list to start. Okay. Here is the list in order. So here are the withdrawals We've got Batista a guru. He pulled out Baratini's pulled out shardy also out Federer is out coppa Curios Murray Montfies Nishikori and Strouf have all pulled out of this one So some big names there obviously some ground slam champions with Murray and Federer, but Baratini He's probably the biggest name from and probably the biggest threat out of the men's draw Because he made the quarterfinals here last year and you know took a set of Norway here It is the top section of the draws. So you see there Novak Djokovic number one seed We've got 32 seeds of course in a grand slam Novak Djokovic number one seed He takes on Nishioca in the first round winner of that match will take on either Mulkan or Koriya in the second round Then we've got Betonay taking on O'Connell winner of that will take on either Quavos or the 31st seed Brooksby in the second round. Then we've got the number 18 seed Dimitriok taking on Giron Winner of that would take on either Chorich or Tabinah in the second round Then we've got Altmayer versus Moon now winner of that match will take on either a qualifier or the number 15 Seed Schwartzman in the second round So it doesn't look too bad for Nolay when you're looking at it like this But when we go down the list a little bit more it gets a bit crazier, but not too I mean look Djokovic would be happy with that Nishioca, you know, Koriya is a dangerous clay quarter But probably not too dangerous for Nolay, you know Brooksby third round Who knows what that's gonna look like Dimitriok Schwartzman. I mean there's some Nolay should make it out of this section of the draw Okay, this is where things get crazy second section of the draw We've got the number nine seed Ojalia seem he takes on a qualifier winner of that match takes on either a qualifier or Carrots of in the second round then we've got to be low versus another quali winner of that match takes on either Krianovich or the number 17 seed Opelka in the second round Then we've got the number 26 seed Vanders-Anschel taking on a quali a lot of qualities in this part of the draw winner of that match takes on either Fanini or Popper in the second round then we've got Stan Vavrenka versus Mutei Winner of that match takes on either Thompson or the number five seed Rafa Nadal So Rafa versus Stan could be a second round and of course you can see a bunch of other matchups Ojalia seem taking on Rafa in the fourth round and of course this section of the draw is playing Djokovic's section in the quarter-finals, so we could get Nadal Djokovic quarter-final that could happen Of course Ojalia seem could be in the quarters as well But Rafa versus Nolay that is the quarter-final that could happen at this French open next quarter of the draw Next section we've got Zverev number three seed He takes on a quali in the first round winner of that match takes on either Lyovic or Baez in the second round then we've got Nakashima taking on Matjrzak winner of that match takes on either Grigsbor or the 25th seed Davidovic Fakina in the second round then we've got the 23rd seed Isner taking on Haliz Winner of that match takes on either Daniel or Barre in the second round Then we've got Morrow taking on a qualifier winner of that match takes on either another qualifier Well number 13 seed Fritz in the second round, so this isn't a bad draw for Zverev You know you've got Fakina who we know is dangerous We've seen him beat Djokovic this year on clay, but Zverev's gonna have to like that I mean, you know Fritz is now there on clay I mean Zverev would like his chances against those guys So I think I think Zverev's got to be happy with his draw He's got to be pretty happy with this draw All right the last section of this top half of the draw we've got Nori number 10 seed taking on the wild card Gunnar in the first round winner of that will take on either a qualifier or Kudla in the second round Then we've got Dillion versus team. There's Domi team winner of that match will take on either a qualifier Or the number 21 seed Hashinob in the second round Then we've got the 27th seed quarter taking on Milman winner of that match takes on either Harris or Gascay in the second round Then we've got Ramos Van Ola taking on Kokonakis Winner of that match takes on either a qualifier or the number six seed Elkaraz in the second round So I mean straight away you can see Elkaraz quarter. They played a Monte Carlo quarter got the win That's gonna maybe happen in the third round You've got team versus Hashinob in the second round You got Nori and Elkaraz in the fourth round. They played a hell of a lot this year They seem to always play each other and of course this section of the draw will take on this Verev section So we could be getting Elkaraz versus Verev. We could be getting I don't know It's a miracle we could be getting team versus Verev And of course this part of the draw also takes on the top quarter as well Which has got Nadal and Djokovic so we could be getting Elkaraz Nadal We could be getting Elkaraz Djokovic. We could be getting Zverev Nadal Zverev Djokovic I mean there's a lot of combinations the top half of the draw is Stacked bottom of the draw the top of the bottom half We've got Rude the number eight seed taken on Songa in his last match possibly of his career But we know that match will take on either Russavari or Umbair in the second round Then we've got Souza versus a qualifier Winner of that match takes on either Goyovcek or the 30 second seed Senego in the second round Then we've got the 24th seed Tiafo versus Bonsai winner of that match takes on either Leheka or Goffan in the second round Then we've got Chekinato versus Anduha winner of that match takes on either a qualifier or the number 12 seed Hercatch in the second round this part of the draws pretty open I mean Rude's probably the favorite. He's the better. He's the best clay quarter there I think but you've got like Tiafo You've got Hercatch, Goffan as a dangerous unseated player But that's a nice section. That's a nice section to be in for Kasparui. Next part of the draw now We've got Shapovalov the 14th seed taken on Runei.  Winner of that match will take on either Mardnez or Laxinan in the second round Then we've got two qualifiers going at it. Winner of that match will take on either Gaston or the number 19 seed Diminor in the second round. Then we've got number 29 seed Evans taken on Serendolo Winner of that match will take on either Ima or Duckworth in the second round Then we've got Pui versus a qualifier Winner of that match will take on one of the best first-round matches going around Moussedi taking on the number four seed, Stephanos Siddi-Pass and if Moussedi can bring some form like he did last year That is going to be fire in that first round. So then look this part of the draw You can see Shapo, Diminor, Siddi-Pass, they could all play each other at some point And of course this part of the draw will take on the Rude section of the draw So we could be getting Rude versus Siddi-Pass. Hercatch versus Siddi-Pass. We could be getting Rude versus Shapo But who knows? I think Siddi-Pass and Rude though, they'll be liking their draw. And the bottom quarter now the top of the bottom quarter We've got the number seven seed Rubelev taking on Kwon. Winner of that match takes on either Manorino or Dalbonis in the second round Then we've got Pear versus Vashka. Winner of that match takes on either Garin or the number 30 seed Paul in the second round Then we've got 22nd seed Basila. It's really taking on Kressi. Winner of that match takes on either McDonald or a qualifier in the second round. Then we've got Bayanna versus Ott. Winner of that match takes on either another qualifier or Yannick Sinner, the 11th seed in the second round. So Sinner versus Rubelev could be a fourth round But other than that, I mean, I mean Garin, he's dangerous, but that's about it I mean Paul and Basilash really aren't really clay quarters. Basilash really is sometimes but not always Now the bottom section of the draw and this is where everyone wanted to be because of the players that are in this At the top of the draw, the number 16 seed or the top of this section, the number 16 seed Karina Buster taking on the wild card Simon, who's playing his last French Open So we'll see how he plays in front of his crowd. Winner of that match takes on either Vesely or Johnson in the second round. Then we've got Fucovic versus a qualifier The winner of that match will take on either Balash or the 20th seed Chilich in the second round. Then we've got Ketchmenovic versus Echeverry. Winner of that match takes on either Rindinik or Bublick in the second round. Then we've got Berenkis taking on Jera Winner of that match takes on either Bagnus or the number two seed, Daniel Medvedev And like I said, you want to be in that bottom section of the draw because Medvedev is not in great form and You can kind of take his spot if you beat him or if you, you know, if he loses You can take his spot in the draw and avoid all that top section till the final. Ketchmenovic Obviously the guy to watch out for, he's been the man for pretty much the entire year who's had very good results He's probably gonna get out of this. I mean, he could, there's a quarter final up for grabs for Ketchmenovic And of course this section of the draw will take on either Sinor or Rublev possibly in the quarter final So we could be getting, you know, Sinor versus Medvedev, Rublev versus Medvedev But more likely Rublev versus Ketchmenovic or Sinor versus Ketchmenovic In that section. So that could be interesting and of course this part of the draw will take on the Sidzee pass part So we could be getting Sidzee pass versus Rublev, Sidzee pass versus Sinor Sidzee pass Medvedev by some miracle like we'd had last year Again, you want to be down the bottom half and the players that are down the bottom half are gonna like their chances a lot more But who's gonna win this tournament? Who is going to win the French Open for 2022 now that we have the draw? Who are you picking? Let me know in the comments below. Let me know in the chat Who are you picking? Because Nadal and Djokovic and Elkvist do not have easy roads They've got the hardest roads possible Who is gonna win the French Open?  I kind of like Sidzee pass's draw I think Sidzee pass has the best draw because Varev, Nadal, Djokovic and Elkvist all have to play each other Only one spot in the final and there's four guys that'll all be competing for it Sidzee pass could just walk into the final and be like I'll play the one who you know Had to fight their way to the stage, but then again go to goats and it's very hard to not pick goats, isn't it?


Hello everyone and welcome back to my second channel. This is my second channel, it is not my main channel. And if you thought it was my main channel, then guess what?  Mm-hmm, that's right. If you came here and honestly thought that this was my main channel and not my second channel where I like to get goofy, wacky, silly, and honestly just downright random, then you're off your rocker. I haven't posted here in a bit and honestly, it's just because I haven't had any good ideas to post here. I don't really know what to post in my second channel. I sort of started it because I had all these ideas that I felt like weren't good enough for my main channel and I wanted to post on there. But then I sort of ran out of those ideas and now I just don't have any ideas for this channel. So if you have any ideas for what I should do, let me know. I've got a la croix here. It's a pamplemousse, which means grapefruit in French. That's refreshing. That's good. All right, well, you probably saw the video that I posted on my main channel about all the TAC products. In that video, I reviewed the commercial for all these TAC products and I actually bought a bunch of them for that video and ended up only using a couple of them for sketches and stuff just because I wanted to have them just in case I needed them and I only used like two of them. But I have all of them that I talked about. I have all of them here, you know? I figure why not turn this into a second channel video? I don't want all this stuff to go to waste and not get any content out of it, you know? Because I spent a lot of money on it, you know? So I've reviewed the commercials. Now it's time for me to give my review on the products starting with the TAC bat. I already opened this one because I used it in that video. But let's just take a look at the box real quick to see what we're getting ourselves into. 40 times brighter than this regular flashlight and there's a picture of a flashlight. Also, I don't know why they really like taped this thing shut and put like cardboard all around it. It was in another box. And then when I opened that box there was just like cardboard taped all around it. So I had to like peel that off and destroy the box while opening it. Probably ruining any value that this thing might have had on like a collector's market or anything. I don't know if people are going to be collecting TAC products in the future but if they are, I'm out of luck. Visibility for four nautical miles. That's crazy. What are nautical miles? Is that different than just regular miles? Does that mean it works under water for four miles? Is this for Navy guys? Let me just Google this real quick. What are nautical miles? Okay, this says that it's 1.15 miles. So a nautical mile is actually more than a mile if Google is correct. This can actually light more than four miles which is perfect for those situations where you need to see something that's four miles away. Oh, and if you're wondering, yeah, this is the 12 inch edition. So we're getting crazy. And ladies and gentlemen, here it is, the TAC bat. AKA, the TAC bat. Oh yeah, it doesn't have batteries in it yet. I gotta put those in. It requires three AA batteries. Now let's put this baby to work. I'm curious to see how bright it actually is and how good of a weapon it is. It's a tactical flashlight and a tactical bash light that you could use in a practically brash fight. All right, let's turn this baby on and see. Ooh, wow. Okay, it looks bright. That's a cool lens flare too. Look at that. I'm gonna light up this back wall. But first, you know what? Let's test a civilian flashlight first. I'm just gonna use my phone flashlight. Pretty standard brightness. Actually probably less than average brightness. And okay, that's shining on the wall but it literally doesn't look like it's doing anything. So that's what the phone flashlight does. Now let's try the TAC bat. Holy moly, geez dude. Okay, this thing is bright. Wait, that's so annoying. So to turn it on, you just press it once. But then if you wanna turn it off again, you have to cycle through all the different modes which I think goes down in brightness and then turns on strobe mode and then a different flashing mode and then it turns off. So let's say you've got it on, right? The super bright light. You're creeping through your house in the middle of the night trying to find the bathroom. You find it and then you're like, okay, great. I've gotten to the bathroom. It's time to use the potty.  It gets dim. Your eyes start to adjust to the darkness. And then just when you think it's time to take a little pee. Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing. And then it turns off. Sort of like you're using self-defense mode on yourself. All right, let's take a look at how good this thing is as a weapon. All right, I was half expecting the light to stop working when I hit him in the head because it just seems like something that would happen. But you know what? This thing's military tough. I mean, say what you want about the commercials but I'm actually kind of impressed. This is military tough. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I had to do that to you. Should I try self-defense mode on myself? Should I see if it disorients me? I'm gonna do it, but from a distance. Okay, so this is self-defense mode. I'm gonna set it on my desk and then I'm gonna walk over here. About the distance a bad guy would be. And I'm gonna be doing my little bad guy things and then I'm gonna turn around and see if it disorients me. Now I didn't. All right guys, so I wanna test this out in a tactical situation. So what I've done here is I've set up a situation that I think we all pretty much fear in our homes. There's an attacker in my basement. Pretty much everyone's worst fear, a creeper from Minecraft is in my basement. He's about to attack me as you can clearly see.  So I'm gonna act us out as if it's a real life situation and let's see what happens. Oh no, I hear bump in the night. There might be something in my basement. Let's look around. We start with a wide beam. Is it you? No, okay, those are always there.  Now I suppose what I wanna do, as you can clearly see he's about to attack me. This does not look good. I suppose what the attack commercial would have me do first is try self-defense mode. In the heat of the moment, you have to get to self-defense mode really fast. Luckily it's only one, two, three clicks away and now I'm in self-defense mode. And actually I can probably even focus it all on him. His retinas are probably burnt like on fire right now if this was a real person. His eyeballs would probably be like burning in his sockets. I love that it's three clicks away.  I am, ha ha, gotcha motherfucker. You're dead.  Is anyone in here? Hello? Now that I've stunned him, I guess now the only thing really left to do is attack him. Cause it's either I attack him or he attacks me. I guess do the stance. On your mark, get set, go. This was on, right? Yeah, it was on. Okay, it turned off for some reason when I smacked him. But Jesus dude, come look at this damage. All right, I'm feeling pretty good about that. But you know what? I'm still kinda worried that he's about to attack me. So, okay. Yeah, he's looking pretty bad now but let me just go ahead and just make sure with this.   That's why I like to keep on self-defense mode. I'll probably just stand here like this until the police come. I'll say, honey, there's an intruder in the basement. Don't worry. I think he's dead. But can you call the police? And then I'll probably just wait here until the police come. And I think that's pretty much it, you know? I think that's pretty much. Hey! Shit, sorry. I thought I saw, I thought I saw him move. I think we're good now. Thanks, tack bat. All right, well, that's the tack bat. My review, nine out of 10. It's actually pretty good. I can tell it's made out of genuine aircraft grade aluminum or whatever and it makes quite a beating stick. Okay, next up, the tack visor. This is the other one that I actually used in the video if you remember, two-in-one car visor. I feel like they didn't talk about that enough in the commercial, but there's a nighttime driving visor and a daytime driving visor.  This guy looks really happy. And then there's a nice before and after picture.  So I have already opened it and I have it right here. Yeah, I mean, this is pretty much it. It clips onto your car's actual visor, the non-tactical one and it goes up like this and then when you need it, it flips down like so. I actually am noticing that it kind of does that thing that it did in the commercial. Hold on one sec and I'll try to show you what it does. All right, watch this ready. You see my reflection in it, but if I turn it this way, ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom, there's the eagle. You can see him clear as day. I mean, if I take this off, you can still see him, but that's how polarizing light works. If you turn it, then you can't see him anymore. Maybe I should take this into my car and see if it actually works in there or if this makes any difference. All right guys, time to test this thing out. I've got my visor here, my regular old visor that will block the road and all the cars and make it impossible for me to see. Let's get a quick demo of that. So let's say I'm like driving and it's so bright and I can't see it, so I put down my visor and as you can see, it's like pretty much useless. I can't even see the road anymore.  That's why you want something like this, the TAC visor. I believe it just clips on to your normal visor making it actually useful for once. Okay, so my garage opener is already kind of in the way and then it flips up like that. Let's just do a quick control test for comparison. I'm gonna drive without it. It's a nice snowy day and snow always reflects light, you know, sunlight, so it's very bright out. Let's see how I drive without the TAC visor. Fuck! Shit! As you could probably tell, it's almost impossible driving right now without some kind of help. I mean, if you wanna just turn the camera so that they can see in front of us, it honestly kind of feels like staring right into a TAC bat in self-defense mode. Let's go ahead and flip down the TAC visor. Oh, okay, interesting. Huh, I cannot tell if this is helping much. I mean, it is making things darker. Because there's like bright windows behind me, like the side windows through the back windshield, I can see all of those reflected in this screen and it's kind of really distracting. And I can also see like my reflection. I can see my mouth moving in the reflection here. As I said in the commercial, this is basically just like it polarizes the light, which is basically what most like sunglasses do if you have polarized sunglasses. So I'm gonna see. I think that these are better. I think I would just prefer to use these. Using them at the same time, however, this could be a game changer. Actually, I just like lifted my hand up and moved this thing. I feel like that could, whoa, I feel like that could like drastically affect your driving abilities. Now maybe you can tell a little bit better how many reflections there are. And also this is a good example right now because the car is kind of bouncing. This is like jiggling as it bounces. So not only are there like these distracting reflections of things moving behind me, but like this is also bouncing, which is making all the reflections like just go like. Do, do, do, do, do, do. One thing I will mention though, is that someone tweeted me and said that they actually have a tack visor and it's because they wear glasses. And so if they have like glasses, they can't also comfortably wear sunglasses. So that actually makes sense. If I was wearing glasses, I wouldn't want to put on sunglasses also. Attack wallet. All right, this one should be fun.  Let's take a look. Aha, Velcro, very cool. Ooh, what's this? Okay, it's just like, just list some of the features of the tack wallet. I thought it was going to be a card to some like exclusive tack club that I was going to get to be in.  Lane, oh, came with one of these, which is always fun to. And overall, I mean, this seems like a pretty fine wallet. It's got the lanyard on it, which Nick Bolton really loves so that it won't get stolen. Oh, this only works if you're wearing a belt though, right? Cause the belt has to go through it. So that's, I mean, that's not going to really help a boy like me. I don't wear belts often.  I think I'm going to be attaching that. Okay, I don't have like a bow and arrow, but I have a pocket knife. I think this is a pretty valid way to test how resistant it is to damage. I cut through it right away. I sliced right through it. There's a big, there's a slice. I actually didn't think that was going to happen. I kind of thought that it wasn't going to go through, but nope, I'm just, I'm slicing it right through. It's not often that someone's going to be going around stabbing your wallet. So I think you're probably good cause I was really digging in and trying to slice it. It's not like I just went like that and it sliced. No, it doesn't. Okay, okay. Well, maybe it does, but yeah, okay, it does if I go like that. How often does that really happen? The only time you have to worry about that is if you fall into like an industrial meat slicer and the only reason you would need your wallet to survive is so that the police can identify your mangled corpse. Overall, I'm going to give this like a three out of 10 because it's not a very nice looking wallet. It's not sleek. Honestly, it's not very tactical looking.  I'm not super crazy about it. It didn't even hold up to the stabby stab very well. I feel like if I was wearing this in my breast pocket and a bad guy came up and started stabbing me, I don't even think it would protect my precious heart. And if you can't even protect my heart, then what can you do? Okay, it's tech shaver time. Let me just slice this open. And what do we have here? You know, I think one of the things I'm most excited about with this is seeing how well it works for Navy guys like myself.  Damn, it came charged right out the gate. So this I believe has a rechargeable battery so it doesn't take any batteries and you just kind of shave, you know, like that. And it's got a little trimmer for trimming. Okay, this kind of looks cool, right? When I first took it out of the box, the first impression I had of it was like, this looks like a taser. I would say that that is kind of a tactical look. It looks like you could just kind of meh, meh, meh. One thing I want to test with this is how well it actually handles in water because that was one of the biggest claims they made in the commercial. Really the best way to test this is just to drop it in a glass of water like they do in the commercial and see if that really works. That'll do. Let's just fill up a glass of water and see what happens. I'm trying to think of really like a practical scenario that this would be helpful. And so far the only thing I can really think of is like, I'm shaving, I'm looking in the mirror, getting a good shave and then like all of a sudden like, oh no!  Oh no! Oh no! I dropped my razor in a glass of water and it's fully submerged in there. And you know what? To their credit, it does seem like it's still working. I mean, it's still making the noise. That's really the only way I can tell. There's little bubbles coming out of the side. It looks kind of like smoke. I think maybe that's just air. Okay, well it's not actually smoking as far as I can tell. So maybe it was just an illusion. Smoke and mirrors. You know what, actually? That's a good test for most people. You know, you're doing a shave and you drop it in a glass of water but that personally would never happen to me because I don't drink still water. I only drink La Croix. I think you know what we have to do now. No. Now if it can handle this, I would be pretty impressed. As we all know, sparkling water is much more violent than regular water. Okay, so I'm shaving. I'm having a sip of my delicious grapefruit La Croix. Mmm. It's good as ever and I can still probably shave. Well, look at it in there. It's like coated in bubbles. Well, it seemed like that worked too and I can still get a good shave. Did that shave me at all? A little bit, I think. Okay. It's kind of hard to tell because I didn't have much to begin with. All right, well, you know what? I'm gonna say the claim that it works underwater is true. I don't know if it like works underwater because like I don't know if it really worked to begin with based on the review that we watched but it does what it did on land, underwater. Okay, well, bye.


Hey, you guys. So today we're going to talk about bone tissue and cartilage tissue. Hopefully this visual is totally familiar to you, because we've been here, done that, and we already know that we've dealt with connective tissue proper. You know that connective tissue is a tissue made up of cells found within a matrix of ground substance and fibers. We talked about all the like normal kinds of connective tissue, and today we're going to deal with our structural types of connective tissue. We have two main kinds of structural connective tissue, and that would be bone and cartilage tissue, and we're going to look at all the different subsets of bone and cartilage tissue. We're going to talk about how it forms, how it grows. We'll do a little bit of lab preview and look at some of the histology. But we're focusing today not on bone organs or like the bones that you think of in your brain when you hear the word bone. Instead, we're going to focus on the tissue itself. Now, bone organs are definitely made of bone tissue, but bone organs also have other tissues in them. In the next lecture, we're going to spend the whole time talking about bone organs and how those things actually work. Now, we have one more kind of connective tissue before we've completed our full survey of connective tissue land, and that would be our fluid connective tissue, blood.  However, we're not going to do that until we get to the cardiovascular system. By the end of the semester, you will have studied all of these types of connective tissue. You will be a connective tissue expert. Today, we're adding in a big piece of your connective tissue pepe picture. All right, let's get started looking at cartilage connective tissue.


Hi, well I'm Professor Steven Nesheva and I want to tell you a little bit about the connection between Plank or plunk black bodies and what's called the Steppen-Boltzmann formula. So I think you may already be familiar with this with the Steppen-Boltzmann curve, which I'll just remind you on this x-axis here. I've got temperature and on the vertical axis what's being measured is the intensity or flux and the idea is that you have a you have a body like the Sun or maybe the Earth and since all objects glow and this is telling you how much it glows. What's the total intensity of light that comes off that object and as you probably know from experience the hotter something is the more it glows. So I've drawn two points on that graph. One would be the temperature of the Earth which says that it's going to glow with a certain intensity and another one at the temperature of the Sun. This is a little bit misleading in this in that really the Sun is much much hotter, so this would be really much farther over to the right. But it gets the idea across that the Earth radiates with a certain amount of intensity and the Sun radiates with much higher intensity. The formula is given by this, the Steppen-Boltzmann formula says there's a constant sigma, multiply that by the temperature raised to the fourth power and that's what that curve is. So the question to address here is how does that come about? And the way we think about that is that we for any either one of these cases we try to imagine what would be the spectral distribution, that is to say, what is the intensity you know according to wavelength by wavelength and here it's quite it's quite distinctive and the idea goes something like this. The Sun, we're over here, emits with a high intensity at a low wavelength of light. This is a wavelength scale that I've got here and you may already know this, that the peak of the Sun's light happens at about 0.5 microns, which translates to 500 nanometers, and you notice the scale goes from 0.1 to 1, it's a long scale to 10, so 0.5 microns or 500 nanometers is about right there. And in fact the visible range runs from about say 300 to about 700 so that's the that's the visible range. You can also see from this that the Sun also emits in the shorter wavelength, which is the ultraviolet side, and also in what's called the near IR side. Most of the Sun's emits in the visible range, but there's this these big wings. So this curve that I've drawn here, it's called a plonk black body, and it's there's a characteristic curve for any object at any given temperature. The other thing that I've drawn here is a plonk black body curve for something that's at the temperature of the Earth. So let me just annotate that. That's that was a plonk black body for the Sun, and this is a plonk black body for the Earth. You notice a couple things about this. It's lower that so the total intensity is much lower than the energy emitted by the Sun. In fact, I've really exaggerated this quite a lot that this curve would actually be quite tiny compared to that of the Sun, but I wanted to show you them both at the same time. The other thing to notice is that the peak of the spectral emission for the plonk black body function for the Earth happens way over here at a much longer wavelength. It's far outside the visible range. It's way over here. It peaks at 10 micrometers, which people can't even see. So you can't see the Earth glowing. You have 10 special instruments to measure it. So I want to now connect what we've just said to the Stefan Boltzmann picture. It's the area underneath here that we plot under the Stefan Boltzmann. So you can see the area under the Sun's plonk black body curve is really high. The area under the Earth's plonk black body curve is much lower. And again, that's quite exaggerated. This is much bigger than that. Let's see. I've talked about the visible range, the area underneath the plonk black body. The remaining point that I wanted to make about this is this distinction that we make between long wave and short wave. It's very simple. We more or less say, well, I'm going to call short wave to be more or less the range that the Sun emits in, which we're going to call more or less from 0.1 micrometers out to somewhere between, you know, here and here. We'll call that around three microns, three micrometers. Okay, so that's going to be short wave, 0.1 to three micrometers. And then we're going to call long wave to be more or less where the Earth radiates most of its light, which we're going to call three to, let's say, a hundred microns. Okay.


Okay, thanks for joining everybody. My name is Kiran Dines. I work for Talent, and we're an integration software vendor. I guess that's why we might have been asked to host this panel today. I wouldn't call them Motley Crew, but it's definitely the key vendors, I think, in the NoSQL space. We have, I guess, starting from our left over here, we have Patrick McFadden representing data stacks. We have Dipty Borca representing couch base. We have Matt Kaplan. Callen. Callen, sorry, from TenGen, and we have Jim Weber from Neotech. So I'll let each individual, when we kick it off, basically just kind of give, I guess, their flavor in terms of what they want to get out of this particular session. But maybe just kicking it off, I just want to get a show of hands just to see who we have in the room. If we start off with who here is the developer or coder who works directly with NoSQL technology? Okay, good. Alrighty, you got a good sense. Who's more of an IT manager person that might be looking after either a dev team or kind of making the decisions of which one of these NoSQL databases are more should they be looking to use? Okay, good. And who is none of those things kind of more business or has wandered into this convention as thinking it was something completely different? Okay, best of luck. I guess we kick it off and start by maybe just throw it back to the panel. So guys, what do you think we can discuss today in terms of what is standards and conventions? Maybe just try to frame it for each person in terms of what you think that might mean as a topic, as a subject matter. So maybe we start with Jim on this side. So Jim, what do you think this means for people? So I think from a kind of IT management point of view standards are something that gives us a level of comfort. So we're looking for some guarantee that if my vendor goes underwater today and God forbid these venture funded NoSQL databases whatever go away, they all seem so stable that I can replace that infrastructure with minimal pain and fuss and keep continuity of service going. I also want to keep my costs low. I don't want to have to relearn things every week when the new shiny comes out and standardization holds up the promise of precisely that. Okay, so just a corner. It's protectionism against you personally who will obviously inherit millions and islands and all those great riches once said VC basically takes the cash. Something like that. Yeah, let's go with that. Okay, cool. Does that go for everybody else? Anybody else want to offer something slightly different? Or is it the protectionism or what else? What are the key things that we get from a session like this? What are we looking to try to achieve? I think it is about preventing getting locked into a vendor as we just talked about but it's a little bit more than that. It is being able to interoperate between multiple systems. Being in the integration space yourself you see the importance of a standard because you don't want to integrate with 100 different NoSQL solutions coming out but want to have one way of perhaps connecting with all these systems and that's the other aspect of it which is a more practical aspect where you really want to have a broader integration with multiple systems. And it also makes the conversation broad. It's not just one vendor saying here's how it should be. It really opens it up to the community, to customers, to users saying if we take a step back this is how this will fit in our overall enterprise stack and not just one vendor putting a solution out. Okay, so best guess, best estimate it took maybe 15 to 20 years, maybe 25 years to get to SQL in 92. So starting from today we've got some time on our hands to basically achieve a certain amount of standards. Maybe go a little bit deeper into sort of the tech in terms of maybe Patrick you think about what are the intersection points that you might say okay what are the best candidates you might hope for for standards that we could look for across the NoSQL landscape. What's possible? What's off? Completely off reservation, you can't do it. Probably the thing that everybody can agree on are the ones that no one wants to use or talk about security. Security is easy because everybody has to have it and it's a commonality. If we talk about things like query languages then we have to get into architectures. But if we talk about security everybody sucks at security and no one will ever be good at it. So if you can come up with the standards around that and there already are plenty of them but if you agree that we can maybe adhere to certain standards that are already there and then enhance it with others then distributed computing has a whole different problems when it comes to security. And is security different in NoSQL than you could say in normal traditional databases are there characteristics that are so different in terms of what you guys are doing or what you're seeing or is it just more of the same but as you say basically applying standards uniformly across all these different implementations. Well definition. I don't know. I can't put one vendor on this panel that doesn't have a replication story. Replicating data means that your data is spreading out. How do you assure someone that we're following some sort of standard that your data is okay when it's spread out? There are difficulties though, right? So at the surface level you bang on, right? We all need to kind of seal off attack vectors but then imagine things like authorization. Now on your stack, authorization could well be around atomic documents, right? This user gets access to this document. You guys probably have this more in common than I do. This user gets access to this document and you could apply some security rules around that which could be common. But on my stack the security would be a user has a path to some resource deeper in the graph and then kind of that's the point which I would diverge from you guys. You don't leave me behind giggling saying how you can't be part of our security party. So when you said architecture that kind of triggered me. It's architecture, it's also data model. It's kind of funny, right? No SQL we've kind of been lumped together even though actually I can enumerate four different data models even along this table and we're lumped together under the same umbrella and admittedly I'm the oldest by far of the data models represented here. Unquestionably, right? But it's not like you guys are identical either and I think anything that's going to be properly secure that you could really tie down in a fine grained and useful fashion is going to have to be accommodating our data model and I'm not convinced that standardization helps when you get down into that nitty gritty. It could actually be a hindrance because we'd end up being at loggerheads I need paths in security and you're like well I hate paths, I couldn't care less about paths.  Yeah I think everything that comes up to be the interface between right at the front end right of the database you would use SSL for example over the wire it's a standard, everyone would use it you know certificates and all that. As soon as you get below that and you start looking at granularity as Jim pointed out then you get into data models and the data models are so different with Oracle, IBM and SQL Server where it started off everyone at least had the same relational database and the same relational data model. They might have had different languages with PLSQL still being very very popular and over time DB2 and the others came up with a migration for PLSQL itself which was still not a standard. So I think the data model piece is where it needs to start. Again there's Bison, JSON, you know there's a column family databases every no SQL database is slightly different and even before talking about a query language if we do not have a uniform data model at the back it becomes very difficult to talk about paths or structures or arrays or nested objects where do you start if the data models are not not really the same. I see a lot of head nodding. So that's certainly a way you can do it but yeah that's what takes longer to really create some normalization of all that. Look at the automobile industry. It is somewhat standardized on the atom. A bolt has a measurement. It could be metric or SAE which is one of the standards. That's the thing about standards, right? There's so many good ones to pick from. So there's not a lot of convention within the automobile industry about the exact size of wheel base or how big a tire should be or any of that. They've determined that we'll all still use the same bolt sizing or that the steering wheel should be on this side of the car. And you know. Well Kira do we have that right in the UK? So if I build a standard car for the UK it's now on this side. So there's variation. As we refer to it as the right side. We're sitting here talking about whether we should have standards or not but I wonder if we should ask the audience a vote of whether they would like a query language. Who would like... Maybe it's an unfair question. Who would like standards? Let's just ask that. And then we're going to ask you to ask you the question, why? But who would like standards or who would like to see standards in no-ceful? Has anyone been put off no-ceful databases because of lack of standardization? I think they wouldn't be here. Exactly, right? We want standards. Well we've already got data in databases. We're getting a great deal of value from it. So what do I care? There are standards that we've got to think about from a consumer standpoint. How do you handle projects? How do you handle security? Security, security, security. Yup. And what do you think was the right to ban theory back then? We said, oh, it's not that's how we get everyone to ban theory. That's like it. I would like to say that what do you think is the right to present people with their model security or safety law? Well, the right representation is whatever I do. And I will now enforce UTI and deviate from your roadmap and waste your time building to my specification. Because that's the other side of vendor standards. They're a weapon in a commercial marketplace. And they can be used in that way. We all muttered earlier before we joined the panel about how actually we've all been profoundly damaged by participating in standards.  We're all battle scarred. Actually, I would hazard a guess that all of us have seen standards being wielded in a corporate driven, politically motivated fashion. So the downside of standards is actually they choke competition and choke innovation. So be careful what you ask for. Because you might be like making a perfectly viable set of you, kind of disparate, kind of blooming environments of data stores boringly gray and the same. On that note of positivity, on that note of positivity, positivity came over here with the pre-writters, right? Yes. XYC also, at that time, if we all tried to what is the best product or the language for for all the big news and community, if you pick that spirit of the standards can be very successful because one of the things which hits you from a standard which is a very important thing Well, you're talking about a common thread which is object-based languages. We have object-based languages that need a common descriptor language. UML works awesome. Hey, we're common family database. How is that going to work on a document database? Not. We're talking apples and oranges at this point. If we have to do this, we have to find the commonality. It's not going to be a data model. I guarantee it. To your point, I think in theory, yes, everyone agrees with the spirit of a standard. Everyone thinks independently to come up with something that's common and that would help at the end for the greater good of the community. But there's the other side where when I'm thinking about how it works roadmap, I want to be agile and fast. It takes a long time to get consensus between people, between vendors. Forget about the fact that a lot of the larger companies, maybe the IBMs and Oracles will probably dominate some of that discussion. Maybe the little vendors might get left out on the side. There is definitely good to it when you look at the interoperability. But the impact it has on the vendor will probably be pretty deep. So I think that there's both sides to that point. So 18 months is too long for us. So 18 months there will probably be another database out there. That's five versions of 18 months. Too long. Sure. Correct. Correct. Nobody is here yet? So I think at some point in time what happens is I'm going to university from technology. I'll be expecting a return on investment. My whole business is not technology. I do something else. Everything can happen. I want to get something out of it. It's just that having a variety but with some kind of standardization. Everybody is going to do the exact same thing. I don't mean so many of them. And also just looking at it differently is a better business than the factory was mentioning, right? Because we have different things. So we need different things. But there is some level of commonality here. It's not that... There are a few axes here, I think. And I think what it would be premature to standardize is the exciting stuff in the SQL. So all of us, we're doing some quite innovative stuff. For me in the graph data world, it's all about graph data models and innovative query languages and all that kind of stuff. And standardizing that now, particularly if we involve these guys who have a radically different data model, that would be both difficult and premature because it would stymie innovation. But there are a bunch of things where I think we have a diligent duty right now to be standard. We shouldn't be baking our own operational counters. We should be absolutely standard compliant for all of that. So we're going to start with the data model that we represented here.  Because the last thing you want is for your ops guys to find a database to be exciting, right? Databases... Operationally, databases have a duty to be done. An exciting database in production is not a good thing. So I think where I think we could start to gain agreement is, okay, let's all agree that we're going to use XYZ monitoring protocol or protocols, right? Yeah, tied it away first. And then we can take a step back. How successful was that?  Can they cooperate like grown-ups to make something that isn't, for them, business critical happen, but which is business critical for the user and customer community? I think once we've got that pathway kind of lubricated, then we can take a step back and think, okay, is there any value in other things you might choose to standardize? That's going to be... you're going to have to standardize within the verticals. You might get the document database standard, the graph database standard, but you're not going to get the no SQL standard. And in fact, I would go out on a limb here and say, shame on you if you think that you could not learn, right? Because this movement is going so quickly that you are going to have to learn new tech. You're not going to be able to wrap all this in your schoolboy SQL and hope for the best. So sorry if you thought standards are going to stop you from performing so let's go back. Let's take the next person on the road, that's okay. Yeah, so I mean in concept the same things apply, right? So you say CRUD or IUD operations or whatever it is, right? But when you again go back to the data model you don't do an insert into table column A comma B comma C comma D you're going to do an insert into and you know open a curly bracket and put in JSON in there for column family it's going to look different, right? There is a concept of key value, I think there is some commonality there with key and a value and maybe the value is it could be column family database it could be JSON it could be something else, right? So there's even with the most basic operations currently, right, at the moment they do look very different for the different databases. I think that at least the way I see it key value access is probably one thing that's common across these databases it could be a place to start where you at least have the basic insert update delete statements and then you can get into paths and all the other implementation details of the data model perhaps. SQL is the other thing you mentioned where a lot of the older the generation before the JSON databases let's say XML where we added in a lot of the syntax and new extensions to SQL, right? They were popular for some of the XML databases like SQL XML, right? But when you actually look at these databases inherently they're so different that there is no SQL core at all and so just extending SQL by itself does not make as much sense however, I think there is a lot of value in a SQL like language to make sure that people can reuse a lot of what they already know but for a different format which has hierarchy built in so and for CouchPace that's the direction that we're moving in again it's not going to be a standard again it's going to be our own language for CouchPace however, again, it's open source right so that allows people to pick up a language perhaps and do more with it and then timing is a big thing right now a lot of us are innovating building in a lot of core features and so we've got to maybe two or three years down once you know as this gentleman said we have some maturity in the core database is that's where we start talking about standards at least for the basic core I think one thing is worth kind of laying out that you know SQL is good in certain cases right when you really have the power and you want to be expressive about data discovery and joining one field to any other field that is on the panel we see that actually not as efficient for agility if the developers in Java or C Sharp or Python or whatever all day it's actually not a benefit that I have to learn another language just to read and write my data right so you know why developers love Mongo is that they use their native programming language the top 12 languages and they can insert you know read write directly from their program now I'm not saying that's best in all cases that's when I have an object I just save it and then get it back there are other times when I really want an expressive query language and maybe that's where there's maybe a need for another language but really most people don't want another language it's only because SQL is already there and people are comfortable with it they may look for another language but if you look at application development I just want to save my object I have I don't want to have to write a stored procedure write a big SQL query just to do that so that's important to realize like one might be the different if you segment the uses and the usage patterns you might say one is from programming language another might be a query language across no SQL databases there might be a need for that for more data discovery and that's where SQL is used or a SQL variant that goes across any database at all like that would be great but just people should realize it's not just we're not just going to have a SQL variant for no SQL because that's not the most effective agile way to build applications a lot of the time so back in the day when I started in IT I was in a small Irish company called Iona Technologies which were a great supporter of the OMG but one of the things we used to always lead with was standards that was huge distributed object technology it made a lot of sense and I guess over time then these things became commodities we landed in the world of J2E again arguably it's a set of standards to the JCP I guess back to what Dipty just mentioned you mentioned that wonderful world of open source when you look at the vendors here and you look at a lot of what's going on with no SQL open source basically pervades this part of the industry and the segment has open source done away with the need for standards I mean it would appear that there are no standards today yet everybody in this room is using no SQL is standards is not relevant is it just that it's open source and that gives you openness flexibility and agility and lack of vendor lock-in so what's going on with this what does open source mean to this whole conversation around standards I guess I don't see that it changes the because the requirement from the customer and the user base is still that vendor independence and not lock-in and so it definitely I think the need is still there I don't know how much it changes the game I was talking earlier about a topic similar to this and it is good that at least in open source everybody can start playing with the technologies and you get a lot of use cases to build standards from instead of a vendor saying well here's what we use we're going to submit that to be a standard and maybe not that many people have used it so maybe good from that perspective but it seems like standards are still very useful there is zero there is no control in open source if you think you have it data stacks we work with we don't own it a lot of the commuters work for us but not all of them they work at other companies it's not like we're going to go in there and impose a standard they'll be rebellion it's open source it's meant to be a meritocracy not a dictatorship and if you're a single vendor with a single product you can do that because you can say this is our product we have product managers and we know exactly what's going on we own the code base but for open source companies there's the F word fork that happened you have myra you have flock drizzle everything you do not want that you want to try to keep it together so if you're trying to come in there heavy handed and say look we're going to start doing these standards groups and everything just log into IRC and watch the IR it'll get crazy because no one's going to want to try to just jump into this that's why I think what is cool is the unsexy stuff that no one's going to care about and the best standards committees I've ever worked on is on the most boring unsexy stuff and we could all agree on it I think it does it doesn't the need for standards doesn't go away because it's open source I think what it does help do is the code is all open you could look at the code build a driver or extend a language or in some sense and so you could the user base the community might actually see what they can do with that language if they like it maybe they build a driver to mongo right maybe they build a driver to kassandra and so that happens organically a lot more so that as a vendor I am not pressurized to say oh I need to build an API for this or I need to build an API to another product it might actually just happen the community might just pick it up they have access to the code and they could do a lot more with it which was obviously never happened with the big three relational database companies so that's the positive that is a good point at least if there are standards that start to come about you're not relying on the vendors to implement it particular mongo DB we control the roadmap at least but still there's tons of open source third party adapters integration points and all that so that's a good point that at least the standards get start to be defined you don't rely on the vendor to solidify you can't have others in the community to solidify it a good idea tends to stick that idea is dying absolutely people voting their feet so when I was a young man first entering IT I was a supplier to a little irish company who led with the standards first I don't know what you tell me so who led with the standards first inside of we they were interested in orbs and interoperable objects and we were interested in OTS and if those standards led to such a pleasant interoperability story for all of us because those orbs were all talking to each other and our OTS didn't need any modification to work with Iona's orb at all to be honest and me and Mr. it's a few times after a few times so let's not let's remember that standards aren't always to the letter successful even if they are developed in a spirit of cooperation and awesome unicorn nuts here here and and Bonasky has found himself now in the no secret community so what does this mean to us he's moved away from objects and now from middleware absolutely so we'll throw it back to the audience I would be interested I think we he is now a fran of Erlang is true he's forever down there is an ISO standard for Erlang it will be much more successful is that ISO or NIS fencing the cage of mind right yeah so we throw it back to the audience maybe just for one last question I'll be keen to kind of then move on to wrap up the session so has anybody got any things they would like to throw at the panel in terms of you know either feedback or accusations or other or what you would like to see in terms of another point of standardization that'll be easy okay we made him to say that that's what I say right open source good okay the only benefit though you're right that no one switched or not many people switched you know in bulk it did help the ecosystem they're like the eye and other tools on top of the database that is you know that is one benefit that at least I want to talk about the ecosystem in a second up studio see that's perfectly boring absolutely the most boring thing I've ever heard do you work for IT ops or do you work sorry yeah I think I had a question there as well so you would say a set of conventions I think back to the jet it's boring I almost fell asleep sure sign that it's going to work because I've got my best sleep in a standards committee meeting okay take another point of view here so I would recommend an open source ETL tool for that activity sorry convention yeah we care a lot because we have half the number of developers to connect to all these things but hey that's another story convention that's a convention don't use a relational tool on a non-relational database there's a convention now we need a new convention how do you manage non-relational databases yeah and I think to your point the ecosystem is where it really becomes important right I think that talent has kind of done that one of the few that has actually plugins or connectors adapters to each and every no-ascual database out there or Hadoop or whatever it is makes it a lot easier for you but the vendor had to do that themselves they had to build individual connectors because there is no commonality between the databases and that's where some set of conventions or at least mapping between data models to see how do you flatten JSON so you put it into relational and then it becomes interoperable across platforms, across other systems that's where I think in the short term a lot of the focus needs to be because I want to have every other BI tool work with couch base too right and so instead of getting each BI vendor to build a connector for me I'd rather have something that is let's say a common API or a common language at least for the data format if it's JSON then it's JSON and that's a standard right there so I think that's where we should focus as vendors ourselves is having trying to really understand formats so that we have a common language if you will to talk to each other across these systems a query language will take some time it will take a while for it to get into a database interface whether it's programmatic interface or a query language across even a document database Yeah I think and I come to this question what we kind of see today is we see Hadoop actually being that bridge between a lot of what we see here today in terms of different no-SQL databases it's kind of like the Knackers yard for data as we would call it Knacker being a place that you stick a horse because a lot of what's happening today so it's kind of a very simple caveman view of the world we kind of see that a lot of people are installing that type of convention but I want to ask for you to have a question or a point here Excellent is that primarily for things like lineage or what we're using the metadata for Yeah so we'll wake up Patrick at the end Sorry he was sleeping there Patrick is that an exciting or non-exciting question No metadata is almost cool So I'd say that's the next phase Sure I mean metadata is important but again it goes to the actual use case and the model and where everyone is different I think that's going to be a challenge where do I store customer data my answer is going to be in about 10 different calling families What's your answer going to be? In a document Exactly So it's a different answer so trying to even address that again we're all running back to relational databases which have been around for so long saying well they had a standard well if they're so great why don't we still use them We do use them but the point was made out in the audience that no one even all that standard has brought us is that I can log into a terminal and probably the SQL I remember from university will work that's what that standard has brought us nothing more because you've never switched off SQL server and replaced it with Oracle yesterday afternoon you always have a nine-month migration plan for your constantly changeover so that standard has basically brought us nothing Just as a challenge that point because I'll challenge that one if you look at the Hadoop community which is somewhat closely related in proximity to this conference they have all embraced an SQL variant on top of Hive and you've got to ask why now is it driven because they as vendors feel it's valuable or their end users basically feel from analytics perspective it's valuable to them otherwise what you would end up basically is just a set of different types of Hive QL or other variants for take Pivotal versus Hortonworks versus CloudEra or SAP God forbid they would ever have been a starter Hadoop is for data discovery though and that's actually where SQL is well suited very suited yeah so it's no SQL is more for the operational workload it's not always a good but did that same language make it into the inter-pregal did it make it into draft did it make it into dry out? Absolutely not so again you've got that same proliferation of non-standard what you're saying is a thing called Hadoop has a language which fortunately hasn't been subjected to too much vendor squabbling but again there's no notion of like the Hadoop languages being prevalent in other Hadoop like processing infrastructure so you could still have that same shit fight between those stacks how do I migrate from Hadoop to Giraffe in an afternoon so it could be the case that we look at the different implementations up here that a single implementations that standards across the group is quite a tricky thing to maybe consider but maybe within the product categories there are room for standards I do take your point security definitely seems to be one of the impediments for any adoption of technology it's an obvious one but then I think from an operational standpoint how do you actually host and run a database in an environment is a key critical question so some convention or standards there that help people like that I think they're good things one last question or point from the audience and then we would ask just for closing remarks yeah on behalf of the OMG sorry yes so you'll be outside basically with folding car and sign up registration forms through the OMG okay but a final point or a final question then to the panel I was hoping I was hoping not to have to mention object oriented databases today but yeah oh wow there was an extra seat yeah there was an extra seat okay so to that to your point I think you know it just goes back to the data model all those modeling all those modeling tools and all those you know conventions and standards worked great because we were working all of them on top of a relational database right but and maybe some different types of data models but here where we are where we are right now at least it looks so different in our world that sometimes it's how to look at Patrick and even talk but and that's kind of where we are I think a very good point maybe this gentleman in the middle here that the rapid innovation is kind of what I would imagine most people here are looking for and keep the openness and the flexibility and just keep rocking because you're doing a great job depending on which flavor of database people want to hear I mean that seems to be what you're kind of saying guys just keep going you're doing a good job so that's a kind of thumbs up I guess from the audience maybe get closing remarks from Neotech and we will then we'll wrap it up what would Neotech say I don't know what Neotech would say operational standardization is going to happen it's going to be driven by market forces you don't play nice with other systems in the data center you won't get adoption standardization a data model at query language level we're still busy innovating at this point so any effort to standardize is premature it's going to stifle innovation watch this space give us another decade we might think about standardizing it's not too long because you're still using the databases and getting great value from them from our perspective the thing that would most help and common desires in all of us is definitely the operational and the kind of security and all that probably is the lowest hanging fruit also the ecosystem now I mean all of us would like when you switch databases from relational to a no-SQL database it's not just switching the databases switching the BI tool the reporting ETL at least ETL is easier and there's vendors supporting it already but that's the other thing driving would drive adoption for all of us would be if there was a standard at least for BI otherwise the BI vendors just have to write to each of us what they are doing I think Mongo more than others but that's my opinion but yeah it seems like things are changing so fast and not really consolidating on a single usage pattern that it might be hard to do that soon Dipty? Well standards have the good, the bad and the ugly as we've talked about and I think it will be a while before we have particularly programming interface or a query language across the same database I think we are working in the right direction where both databases like Mongo and Couchbase are building adapters to common tools I think that's where it should start but it shouldn't prevent us from catching up on coffee every now and then and talking about standards because there is the good part of it that hopefully will come along and do you think that will be driven mostly by the ecosystem or the vendors themselves will get together and have that chat? Well it will depend on what the space looks like right I mean I think for it to happen the space in general needs to continue growing which means that each of us need to collaborate more than compete in some sense for standards and also it will depend on what the other bigger database guys do we could see consolidation we could see a company being bought by someone and putting a sequel layer on top but it's hard to say right now it's the phase where we're into innovating heavily and we'll take it from there Okay good, Patrick I mean I don't want to be a inflammatory no I do No I mean it's clear I think to everyone in this space that we're innovating quickly we really don't want standards right now and there are some standards that we are doing that are small and like I said boring for lack of a better word but just things that have to be done give us a decade I like that and when you see a standards body being formed at OSCON pay attention because that's where it's going to happen this open source is going to change the way we think we thought differently about the way we manage our data let's think a little differently about how we manage standards too Good so I think we'll leave it there I'd like to really sincerely thank all the experts for basically joining today hopefully and again I would actually thank all of the you guys here in the room for basically contributing I guess we're around afterwards if you want to follow up and talk about war stories of OMG JCP all that type of stuff and if you want to solicit Jim, Patrick, Dipta or Patrick to join the OMG I think they'd be more than happy to have that conversation afterwards so thanks very much everybody and enjoy the rest of the conference