We are here inside theCUBE, SiliconANGLE.tv's flagship event. We go out to the events and start to signal from the noise. I'm here with Leslie Miller, who's the dynamic ops founder you sold to VMware. And I got your card here from VMware. And the title, I just want to read, because you know I'm always curious on acquisitions, how they bestow title on people. CTO and Chief Architect, Cloud Automation and Management at VMware. It's pretty long, right? Congratulations. Welcome to theCUBE. Thank you. Dave Vellante, my co-host. Dave, so Dave, we talked to Steve Herrod this morning about where dynamic ops fits. So Leslie, he was saying it sits on top of vCloud because of the abstraction of the complexity you guys do and the ability to go to devices. So can you share with us, is that right? Did he get that right? And what's your view? No, he got that right. The reason VMware brought us in is really to, they want to keep focusing on providing that virtual data center, that piece of fabric that they then want to deliver to the business. The job that we provide or the value we provide is saying, is connecting the end user or the business person and bringing them to the right piece of fabric. So you might have a couple of pods. You might have a vSphere space and you might have an external provider making the decision whether you want to bring a end user who might be a medical researcher onto the right piece of fabric. You might not want them to go to EC2 because of sensitive data, et cetera. So that policy decision to place them in the right place, that's where dynamic ops will fit in on top of the VMware stack. So for the folks out there that are kind of not in the know around your company, dynamic ops and the relationship with VMware, they bought the company that you founded. Explained to them really the premise of dynamic ops and kind of where it all came from. I think they talked about in the keynote. Just quick history for the folks up there. Quick history. The company was founded in 2008. We, I started this product in 2005 within the credit Swiss IT department. My mission was to create technology to enable the data center of the future. And that was really dynamic ops vision. It was to make or enable the data center of the future and be the nervous system of the future data center. 2008, we started with 3 million bucks and three people. And here we are in 2012. We were 120 people doing very well and very happy to be part of the VMware family. And a big lowering part of the value proposition is the ability to manage multi-hypervisor environments. That's correct. I mean, that's what I always caught my attention, but am I overstating that? And that's clearly a big deal, right? So when I got my mission in credit Swiss to go build this product from the CIO, what I had to deal with was multiple divisions in the company, you know, private banking, asset management, investment banking. They were all different IT departments, different platforms, different everything.  You had to be able to deal with different hypervisors, different operating systems, different provisioning processes, different methodology, different everything. And so the key thing about future of cloud computing self-service is that personalization, knowing who you are, knowing what process to follow for you versus someone else, understanding that the life cycle behind what you need is very different than the guy sitting next to you.  No, we'll give you infinite choices and we'll produce them in real time, but put them on the right piece of fabric for you with the right SLA, the right policy management behind that. So the priority now is to integrate into V-Center to make that the central point of control, is that right? That's correct. First mission for the end of this year, Q4, would to be have integration with V-Sphere and the V-Cloud APIs, which is what we're doing. We'll have that ready by probably mid-November and that will be announced later in Barcelona, the details around that. And then very rapidly by mid next year, integrate with all the other products, such as app director and some of the monitoring tools, et cetera, but not losing the heterogeneity. So we'll still talk to Microsoft, we'll still talk to EC2s and other platforms. Just to be clear, that's a commitment that VMware is making. They are absolutely committed to that. I mean, oftentimes you find heterogeneous led products brought into companies and all of a sudden they become subsumed into the homogeneity. It's sort of this perpetual lock-in approach, but you're reaffirming VMware's commitment to that. That actually speaks to John's comment about my title, which is, I am the CTO of Cloud Management. And so therefore, I keep my team in Burlington, I keep my engineering group. They will of course integrate with VMware engineering to some degree, but we will keep those elements of Microsoft, Zen, and other cloud providers. We'll keep that and we'll keep that going. Yeah, that vision of taking 60% virtualized to 90% virtualized. I guess that could happen without heterogeneity, but the value of doing that in stovepipes is not going to be as great. The truth is that Future Data Center is 100% virtualized. I might be short for saying it's not maybe all VMware. It might be, we hope it is, but it might be other providers. It almost definitely won't be. Of course not, right? So let's be honest. So the truth is, and there's bare metal. There are still people who want to go direct bare metal. And one of our value propositions is that we enabled you to provide bare metal as like it is a virtual machine. Our ability to provision onto that bare metal and make it seem like it is a virtual machine was absolutely key as part of the acquisition as well. So what again, going back to that personalization, the four, if you don't mind me, going down this road, the four attributes of that Future Data Center is virtualized, everything. I'm not just talking about an operating system. I'm talking about the network, the storage, the apps, everything. And we're starting to see that. We're seeing it with the acquisitions that are happening. The network space is extremely hot around virtual networks and so is storage going to come online. And that virtualization is extremely important. The second thing is automation. You absolutely want everything to be automated as much as possible, because it's that time to market. You want to push a button and have it now. This is the consumer behavior, right? We want something now. You don't want to wait for it. Look, you buy a book from Amazon. What happens? You pay the extra five bucks to have it delivered the next day, right? You don't want to wait the three days. Exactly, it's instant. So that instant consumer behavior is starting to represent itself in the data center. That's what we're enabling. The third thing of that, of course, is the deconstruction or dematerialization of the data center. What do I mean by that? It's the, here, do you still rent DVDs from a shop? No, right? You stream them online. You mention Kindle. You buy virtual books. So we're no longer bricks and mortars containing our bits and bytes and protecting them. It's deconstructed, right? You have Zipcar.  People don't own a car. They deconstruct their car and rent one when they need it. So that is part of the future data center. And what's number four? Number four is personalization. Consumerization, personalization. You want an individual service, right? Why do you use online streaming with your TV company or your DVRs? Because you can personalize your viewing. You can control when you want to watch that program and when you, and what program you watch. This is the same thing. Personalization is the key. Virtualize everything, automate, deconstruct, instant gratification and personalization. Exactly. Fantastic. Leslie, take me through the vision for the data center operating system. As we called it back in 2007, we were doing some, 2008 when I first started talking to folks like HP. HP Labs had some cool stuff. It's a bigger vision, this operating system, I mean data center of the future because there's the inside of the data center and then the services that go out to the edge which you guys are working on. How deep do you go down into the data center relative to some of the innovation that you guys have done? For example, there's all kinds of big data analytics going on at the probe level, system component level, power and cooling. Just take us through your vision of how you see the data center in the future up and down the stack with new disruptive approaches. That's a big question. So. Put you other spot there. You really put me in the spot. The truth is, we are abstracting from the hardware with hypervisors, we're keep going up that level and essentially this is what VMware's doing with vCloud director, vSphere becoming one product over the next 18 months. It becomes a black box. You don't think about it. You don't care what goes inside of that. So a lot of the analytics that some people talk about today, that's all inside that box and you will have other providers doing exactly the same thing. Microsoft's doing the same thing. EC2 is self managing the little bit of space you buy from them as you're all these guys. So that's the first thing we have to kind of get above that one level. No longer do you have operators messing with the individual bits and bytes and tweaking the CPU. It's not interesting anymore, right? These things are powerful enough to self manage them. Now you go one layer up. Now you start talking about applications. Well the question is that application has an SLA to the end user I mentioned. So those SLAs are something we still have to solve. I don't believe there's a good language here to describe the SLA as you as a human with the application. I'm not talking about is my CPU running at 90% and memory does that. It's giving you the service that you actually want. The user experience. The user experience. The preferred user experience. Exactly. Okay so on that thread, let's stay there. So there's obviously two approaches. Port apps to the new environment or rewrite apps, right? Obviously rewrite apps is the preferred way because then you could unbloat them, make them skinny and thin or whatever based upon the devices and what not. Harder to do. Which is what the preferred way is in my opinion. Versus the port which might not be multi purposeful if it's mobile for example. So what's your perspective on that? I mean everyone's moving to mobile from website based stuff to mobile and social and cloud. So the apps got to move. The apps have got to move. Apps will be rewritten over time. The truth is. It's a rewrite. You're of the campus of rewrite. Well I am. I believe that when you rewrite these applications, SAS applications on these new platform, on these past platforms, you then can build an application that can happily run on a highly scalable, highly distributed environment. But I come from the enterprise, right? You have a catalog of 10,000 apps. You're not going to rewrite 10,000 apps. You're going to write the top 100 apps that could use 90% of the time because those are the ones you're going to rewrite. So what do you do with the other 9,000 apps? Well you go put them in legacy containers, the old virtual machine with the right connections. The key here is then enabling that container that's running that legacy app. You don't have to rewrite it. You don't have to re-architect it. You hold it in there, but you make the container mobile. You make that container being able to move. It's just a compatibility box basically mode. So in a way, don't kill yourself to rewrite the apps that may not need to be rewritten. That's really more of a management question. Well so you're going to have that legacy applications that live inside a traditional VM and is connected to the fabric. What you're seeing VMware and Microsoft and everybody else is doing is making those containers mobile so that I can run two of them in redundancy. I can do stuff. So when the app can't be redundant, make the environment redundant around it at very low cost. And if I need to move the app from London to New York, I can enable that. Okay so share with the audience out there the most disruptive thing that you guys are delivering with this new era. We're calling it the modern era of computing, the modern era of Hadoop, the modern era of the data center. Whatever you want to fill in the blank, the modern era of blank. It's the new way, not the old way. So you guys are on the cutting edge of some really serious work at the top of the stack and to the end user. What is the key thing that you would want to let people walk away with about what's really happening in that part of the market? Technically and in the business side. I'm actually not going to answer that technically. What I will say from a business point of view, to me the most disruptive is, we're moving from what I traditionally have seen, I relate IT today as a communist state. It is communism all over, right? There's a central management team. There's only one of everything. Everything's gray, everything's, there's one choice, end of story. That gets tweeted out. That's a tweet. We're moving to a market economy. We're enabling those market forces. That is the disruption. And when you move to a market economy that's driven by a market, consumerization and personalization is the number one thing that you want to deliver. So we were talking about social media and we were showing you our vFinder tool that we were previewing here. So first, what do you think about it? I think it's awesome. It's fantastic. And this is the kind of the data driven, data led kind of model we're going to. So like you mentioned, market driven. How do you see the role of data in things like social media and comments on the social media influencer versus your perspective there? Because that's a crowdsourcing, self-governing, self-healing or self-destructive. It's a market. It is actually a market. It behaves like an economic market. Let's face it, right? And that's what a self-governing system is. And what you're doing is enabling that. So you're giving metrics into that. I think the important thing of what you've done and what I love about this is you have key people, key influencers that aren't always up there waving their hands who are quietly just getting on with it. How do you define those people? How do you find those nuggets and the connections that they make? And I believe you've been able to do that. And the second thing is you're enabling that personalization of the marketing and targeting the knowledge as a personal thing to somebody specific rather than carpet bombing the entire market in one go. Great. What do you think about the another trend that I want to get your thoughts on? Because again, mobile is a really low latency driven situation and what needs to change in your mind if you get the point and kind of poke the stick at some areas that need quick improvement or whip people into shape with a carrot or a stick. What areas would you say, let's get these areas fixed quicker? In mobile space, it is still connectivity and data. It has to be just everywhere. You need to be able to connect everywhere. There has to be no constraints on the data pipes that you have. And of course, lessons should be also learned as to what happens in Africa, South America, China. I mean, these markets are mobile but they're still operating on SMS. And we're sort of creating this very disconnected world. I think very importantly, we have to build up the infrastructure. The apps are there, the imaginations there. What we can imagine, we can build it today. If the data is not there and you can't move these things around, that's the problem. Leslie, great content, great to have you on theCUBE. You're fantastic. I got to ask you one last question because we had Martin on, talking about network virtualization and I'll see the software defined data center which is the path that he's going down for the entire company. But we also had before that a security panel. So you worked at Credit Suisse, obviously no stranger to security issues. Obviously under siege all the time being the kind of size and kind of company you are. And to now in a world where these new environments, new experience, the modern era that's being reconstructed and architected, what's your view on security? Where do we need to be improving? Is it more of a philosophical issue? Is there technical issues? Virtualization play a role, stateless applications? What's your perspective? I'm actually going to say that security is obviously bits and bytes and encryption and protection of data. These are just table stakes. I mean, we all understand that. Security is about reputation or risk. It's about the reputation of your business. You're not going to do well if people don't trust you. So enabling that and securing that is important. And this is very important in cloud because when you are operating a system, you want to know that the data is in the right legal region, that you're not breaking some law, LCD compliance, et cetera. So that placement engine of where I'm going to place your workload, because I'm providing a personalized service, why I better put it on the right place that I don't accidentally trip over a government regulation. That is also security, protecting that data, putting it in the right place, et cetera. So security is not just bits and bytes. It is about the reputation and how people perceive you and what they come to exactly. Holistic view, Leslie, great to have you on a walk on from Dynamic Ops, acquisition of VMware, last minute guest on theCUBE, CTO, he's got a lot of technical chops, he's an expert in the field and he's now at VMware leading and charging chief architect. Good luck with that and user computing's rage is going to expand. This is theCUBE. We'll be right back with a wrap up of VMworld day three right after this short break. Thank you.


Right, so we're now going to create a project using that profile motor you've got and the workbench using Cubemix and True Studio. So we're going to use all the elements now to build an actual project. And once we've got the project, then we can actually do some configuration inside the software. So all the configuration is going to be done using the workbench. So we're going to show you some of the features. Then I'll hand over to my two power colleagues here who will be able to talk you through some of the other features that we're not playing with today because there's a lot of features and a lot of variables you can control from this MC workbench tool. Using the tool, we're going to generate the project firmware. So we're not going to go into Cubemix yet to generate the firmware. We're going to use the workbench to actually generate the firmware for us. And we'll use True Studio this time. So we can actually build the firmware and then program into our target board. So we're actually going to use the IDE properly this time rather than just using the binary file that we've used in the past. So we need to open our motor control workbench again. So you can close the profiler now. And we're going to open the motor control workbench. And we're going to go for a new project this time. And if we select the inverter tab. And then we should find our pair of boards, which is the F303 and the IHM16 in there. So you have to hit the inverter tab first to get to the particular ones that we're after. Then you select your motor that you saved earlier. So there's mine, Gimbal-COP. And it should have taken the parameters that we've seen. And then you can click OK. So we've told the tool exactly what hardware we've got and exactly which motor we've got connected now. So we can say OK to that. And then it tells you exactly what parameters have been brought in to the project. So you can say OK for that one. So now we're going to generate the firmware. So we're going to generate some code. And that is by this blue down pointing arrow. So up here, we've got this blue down pointing arrow, which is generation. So if you click on that, this will now go off and generate our project. We have to give it a location. I'm going to call it 0-3. 0-3 in there. And if we say save, then you'll get prompted with the tools that it's going to use. There we go. So you need to select your CUBE-MEX version. So we're going to choose True Studio, because that's the one that we installed in our zip file. But all the tools are in there. So IRs in there, Kiles in there. So it means we're not restricting you to just using True Studio. And down here, you've got the ability to take low level if you want to. But we're going to stay with HAL today. Yes, it's going to give us bigger code. But it's easier for us to work with when it comes to typing the extra commands later. So we've got to actually do a bit of coding later on. So if we stay in the HAL, then it's easier for us to work with because the coding is a lot easier for later on. So once you've got that, you should be able to then generate. And it should go off and build your code. That might take a while. So once you've done the build and you've got build complete, you can close that box. And there is a nice quick way to launch the Atolic. You can actually just double click on the last line that's been put in your log file. Because you can double click on there. It should open a Windows Explorer window. Mine is done, which is in the correct place. Hands on workspace zero three as I call mine. You double click in True Studio into the workspace and the dot project. And it should automatically go and launch your Atolic. So you double click on this line here. So project files generated on folder that you can double click on that line. That will then launch a Windows Explorer box. You will have to go into your project name, then into the True Studio folder, then into the workshop zero number again, and then double click on the dot project. And that should automatically launch your True Studio. The first pop-up box here you've got is telling you where do you want your workspace saved. So your workspace can be somewhere different to where your project is. In fact, it has to be somewhere different. In Eclipse, the workspace has to be one folder higher than the project. Because there's metadata stored in the workspace. If they're at the same level, Windows gets confused or Eclipse gets confused. It always has to be one folder below. So please select a location for your workspace. You have to make sure that the folder structure is so that your workspace is one higher than the project folder if they're in the same directory. Only if they're in the same directory. So I put mine in a completely different directory, my workspace. So I've just created a folder called Atolic and workspace on the root of C. I'm leaving my project at the address wherever it was by default. Which is quite a way below where my workspace is going to be. So if you are putting them in the same location, just make sure the project is one below the workspace. So in this case, you wouldn't have to make sure your workspace folder is sat somewhere in hands-on if you were putting them in the same tree. It's your decision. You can put it where you want. You just got to obey by that rule. So once you've done that, you can okay your workspace. And your Atolic will now launch. And eventually True Studio should open. You might get a welcome screen, which you might have to close for True Studio to get the view that I've got there. So what you need to do, we'll go into the code later on in the afternoon. What you need to do now is highlight your workshop number you've created. I've got three in there at the moment. You just only have one. And then you need to hit the hammer icon, which is the build. So if you click that, it'll go off and build the code, hopefully. With zero errors and zero warnings, I'm hoping. Takes a while sometimes. And when it's done all this, you'll actually get to see how large your code is in a minute. It'll tell you somewhere here when it gets there. There we go. So I'm currently at 38K for my code. So once you've built, then you can hit the debug icon, which is the strange insect looking like icon there. Or you can press F11. It'll change the view into the debug perspective. So again, Eclipse works in compiler perspective and debug perspective. So once this section here has been populated, then you can hit the, what looks like a play button, exactly called resume. Your software should be running again on your board. So now if you press your blue button, your motor should start. And if you press your blue button again, your motor should stop.  Now you should be able to control it as well from the monitor. So you've now built the project. You're in the debug screen in your IDE. And your monitor screen is actually working. And you can control it through the workbench. So even I've got it there to clear any faults. So as I said, sometimes it will stall when you try and launch things. So you have to hit the fault at knowledge button. And it will work. And it should still work through the blue user button as well as you found out.


This video is sponsored by NordVPN. Stick around after the sketch for a holiday special in cybersecurity. Thank you all for coming today. This town hall meeting has been called to order to discuss the Lich King power outside of our borders. And honestly, this might be our best chance, people. What is there to even talk about? Send the heroes now. They're only going to get stronger. And what if it doesn't work? Nothing else has. If they beat the Lich King, I doubt there's anything else we can come up with that will actually kill them. No, no, no.  We just have to distract them. And then maybe they'll get bored and leave on their own. What about their behavior would make you think that? They've been staying in your inn for weeks. You should know how much trouble they are more than anyone. They had nothing to do last night. And now town clauses have been turned to town crater. First they got drunk. And then they fought each other. And then they replaced the faces of every statue in town with their own. Running out of ways to keep them distracted. Last time you faked a blight on my farm, they burned down every crop to keep it from spreading. Potatoes. They never saw it coming. I'm really confident about this Lich King. That's what you said about sending him to fight the trolls in the mountains.  We had to condemn several orphanages because the troll kept checking for secret doors with a war hammer. Well, I say we send them back to the raider camps. That'll keep them busy. Those weren't even raiders. They were just camping. We can't keep making up cliched plots until our town is in ruins. How will the Lich King be any different than our previous attempts? Well, that's a thing. I've actually already spoken to the Lich King and he's offered us a deal. We give him our mortal souls and he comes and takes over the town. I am not selling my soul for protection. What if we started spreading rumors that the king is a vampire? Then it's the capital's problem now. No, that would only end with us being hanged for treason. Or worse, they might win and control the entire kingdom. I'm telling you all, this is our only option. Listen, I think between all of us, we can handle a few fireballs a day. It's six. You're at six, you know? Yep. Six is a lot. And so, while the cool nights of 420 were delayed by scheduling conflicts, the Lich filed Lich Town as a sovereign kingdom and ushered in a golden age of prosperity. Yeah, whatever. I roll to attack. What do you mean attack? Attack what, the town? I can do that? Yeah, I attack the entire town. Oh, what have we here? Oh, I'll take some of that, yes. Anything for enigma. Ricky, what are you up to? John, I told you when I'm in the hoodie, my name is Cyphro. And I am about to mainline the internet for the ultimate insecurity at the ultimate cost. Okay, but why would you do that when you can just use Nord VPN and their double data encryption for increased anonymity online? Personal security? Do I look like I'm made of money? Well, actually, with a limited time offer, go to NordVPN.com slash Doormonster or use a coupon code Doormonster for a special holiday deal.  It's honestly quite affordable. NordVPN.com slash Doormonster? I'm in. With these guys on my side, I can finally watch all of Corey in the house and no one can stop me. With Nord's blazing fast servers and region selection, I'm unstoppable. And it's way more safe than connecting your veins to the internet. Find me now enigma. NordVPN.com slash Doormonster. Curse you, Nord.


for another year here in Las Vegas with his white tigers and his magic tricks. It's Siegfried and Roy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Hi, I'm Bruce Schneier and I tried dyeing my pony-to-hair purple for this event, but it really didn't take very well. Yeah, I know you need to bleach it first. I don't actually have enough hair to risk bleaching it. So I believe if you could go out in the sun and stare close, it sort of works. We might try again tonight. So generally the format for this, as it's been, is I answer questions. Usually you guys ask all the good questions, so I'm happy to open the floor. No. Come now. There we go. Is there anybody at the con selling Secrets and Lies? I don't know. The vendor area hasn't opened yet. Sometimes there are booksellers. Often there are, you know, alternative booksellers. I mean, Secrets and Lies, this isn't the book I published last October. So since when I saw you guys last? And now, at a new book out, it's called Secrets and Lies, and it is a general security book, as opposed to a cryptography book. It came out in October last I checked. It sold about 80,000 copies. And it's available at, you know, all major bookstores nationwide. So there's less reason. Oh, good. So I can wave it around. This is not me on the cover. As some people think, actually my mother thought this was me. This is some random actor and it's a stock photo. But no, probably not. Often here we don't have real booksellers. I mean, mainstream booksellers. I guess those are less real booksellers.  The question about the NASDAQ and Glitches in the past three months, the answer is probably. It's often really hard to tell. One of the things I end up doing a lot in cryptogram is sort of trying to decipher the news stories. And one of the biggest problems I have as a security guy is that a lot of the stuff is not made public. It's very hard to learn from other people's mistakes because they keep their mistakes quiet. You know, it's real different from, you know, if a 747 drops out of the sky. We all know it happens. There's a multi-hundred page publicly available report on the accident and what caused it and how to make it better. And we don't get anything nearly like that information for computer security events. You know, were there really two glitches at NASDAQ? Probably. Do we know for sure? No. Do we know what caused them? No. Are we going to find out? No. Do we want to know? Yes. You know, this to me is sort of a major problem in actually getting computer security better because we just don't have good information. There was another hand that was there. What is my background? I thought you also know that. The background looks like, I don't know, some cheap black velvetoid thing. And what kind of questions? I don't know. I'm surprisingly opinionated. But I usually get the crypto questions and then some random security questions. You'll get the hang of it. Other people sort of let you know what to ask. There was something way in the back of PKI. Actually, I'm going to answer the question sort of in two ways. One of the cool things about being a writer is that you're going to write stuff down and you never have to say it again. And I don't mean this in anything negative. But, you know, as someone who does a lot of writing in security, I get to figure out what my thoughts are, put them in a coherent form, put them on paper and say done. And a couple of years ago, I did, Carl Ellison and I, he works for Intel, did a paper called Ten Risks of PKI. We believe that PKI is basically a sham. It doesn't provide any security. You know, the security provides is very minimal. It doesn't actually work the way it's advertised. And it's sort of one of the big embarrassments of cryptography right now. And rather than spend an hour explaining to you why that's true, I urge you and anybody else interested to read the essay. It's on the counterpane website. Counterpane.com is my company. Counterpane.com is the URL. Up in the upper menus, you'll see Counterpane Labs, which is the research arm. And then if you've wandered your way through through publications, you'll find the paper Ten Risks of PKI. And there I sort of outline in excruciating detail. I mean, enough detail that all the PKI companies have written rebuttals to it. Why I think PKI doesn't work. And what, if anything, could be due to fix it. Carl and I are in the midst of rewriting that paper. Because there actually were some good comments in the various rebuttals. And we're going to incorporate them and answer them. And, you know, our position doesn't modify a lot. But there's a lot of new things to say. There's a lot more information, a lot more lessons to be learned. There. Well, thank you. This isn't one of those on page 76, you said A, things. Okay, good. You know, it's a good question. And people didn't hear it. I've said, and I said it a lot, I said it yesterday at Black Hat. And I think people are the major security problem. And in fact, it's a lot of it's not about the technology. And one of the reasons I move from cryptography into computer security is I'm building this really cool math that's not actually solving the problem because it gets screwed up in implementation. And one of the things I believe is missing is detection response. In the real world you have prevention detection response. And if you wander around the real world, detection response ends up working a lot better. And I started a company to do this a couple of years ago. One of the things he alluded to, if you look at prevention as a security measure, it's very fragile. And we see this again and again as we wander through our daily lives. You go to sleep one morning, you're secure, you wake up in the morning, someone published four new bind vulnerabilities, you're completely insecure and it's nothing you did. Security is very fragile. Because once it's broken, you lose it. The question is, can we make security resilient? Can we make it robust? And I believe that part of that, a good part of that is detection response. But if you think about it, if you have enough pressure plates and motion sensors and electric eyes in your house, you're going to catch the burglar regardless of how he broke in. So good detection response will make individual vulnerabilities irrelevant. Because you have basically a surveillance layer. And he has a very good question. How do you implement that to deal with insiders without screwing the trust within the organization? And I always look to the real world. How do we do it in the real world? Well, we just manage. If you go to your average office, the CEO will lock his door. And here we have an internal security measure even though you were in the organization. People will log on, log off their computers. There will be safes. There will be paper shredders. There will end up being a lot of physical controls. Even within an organization. Because we all know an organization is not a single trusted entity. You know, it's naïve to think that everybody in, let's say, IBM trusts everybody else within IBM to the same degree. Because, you know, another point is that trust is a very complex social phenomenon. It's not a single binary switch. So I believe just as you have physical monitoring.  So I think we just end up doing it.  But within an organization, you end up making decisions between security and usability, security and functionality. And as long as we have good laws in place to make sure we're not overstepping any legal boundaries for personal privacy. There are a lot of laws in the physical world what you're allowed to surveil and what you're not. The phone company used to time operators when they went to the bathroom to make sure they didn't use up too much time. That was considered illegal monitoring. So you're going to have a lot of that. You know, as the courts and the businesses jostle to figure out what's allowed and what isn't. In some ways I worry about that because the courts don't seem very privacy friendly in the last decade or so. You know, I used to think that the Supreme Court would be the one body that would, you know, do the right thing and do the smart thing. But, you know, last October I completely lost faith in that. So I don't think it'll be easy. There are no easy answers. But like anything else that involves people, it's going to be a balance. I hope I answered that question. Oh, let's go. I'm sorry? Yeah, actually my next book might be another crypto book. Interesting enough. I have a co-author and we're not going to redo applied cryptography. We're going to do a book that we're tentatively calling Practical Cryptography, which will talk more about the implementation and less about the math. Here's how you do it. Because what you do is pretty obvious, but how to do it is hard. Oh, I'm going to go right there first and then I'll go to that area. The question was about internet voting. I actually, since no one heard his plug, I'll say it. I do a monthly newsletter called Cryptogram. It's a free email newsletter. Probably a lot of you get it. Okay. Those of you who get it, you like it, right? All right. So tell the others, there are flyers for it there, there and in the back two corners by the water pitchers. You can subscribe online or you can give me a business card. I do this every month and it's a collection of interesting news tidbits I find, correcting press reports, commentaries on different aspects of security I find intriguing. I did an essay some months ago about digital, about computerized electronic elections, which I think would be an unmitigated disaster.  I laid out a pretty good picture. I'm going to Brazil to do hearings in front of their government on the topic. It'd be kind of neat. And the question was, given all the responses you heard, was there anything that changed your opinion? The answer is unfortunately no. I think my opinion is based on sort of how computers work. What I advocate for those who didn't read it, I believe that that hand recounts and paper ballots are required. That as soon as you computerize something, you not only add the probability of errors, but you lose your auditability. You can get to a state where you have something you know is wrong, but have no way to get to correct. So I would like to see a paper ballot that could be computer tallied, but you can always fall back on hand tally. And that's sort of the hybrid solution I think would work. I said I would go over to this area. One than two. Do you mean in publishing the manuscript? Actually I do this a lot. I'll give you a rule to success for being a technical writer. Do not have any ego tied up in your words. It's a really good piece of advice. Before I write, before I publish anything, whether it's a book or the essays you see in cryptogram, it goes out for peer review. You know, somebody will read the essay, maybe two or three people, give me comments and I'll make changes. For books, it'll go out to hundreds of people.  Please read it. And I get back all sorts of comments, and I make major changes. And I actually do this in stages, where I'll send the book out to maybe 30 people for review, and I'll get it back. I'll send it out to 30 more. So I don't only get one set of comments, I get many sets of comments. It's iterative. And yet to me, this is the best way, because what the hell, I don't know anything. And it's not true. I don't know everything. So yes, I mean, I know you read some of my book and you gave me good comments. And people have different amounts of free time. Some do very superficial, read a chapter. Some don't do it at all. Some maybe give you back huge comments.  So yeah, if you're doing a tech book, especially in computer security, where there's so many things, little pieces you don't know, I recommend. It's really a lot better to get the feedback before it's published than after. That's sort of the philosophy. There's a question up there. The question is whether I think that the current engineering software, software engineering practice, has enough, I guess, collective wisdom in how things fail, in failure modes, that things are going to get better. I guess it was the basic question. Actually, I believe the opposite. I believe things are going to get worse much faster. We're certainly not learning from, I mean, there are great examples of this. Buffer Overflows is my favorite. You know, it's a 40-year-old problem. We know how to fix it. You know, and still two-thirds of all cert advisories are Buffer Overflows. You know, we're actually not learning very much. And I've given lectures on this last year at Black Hat. I gave an hour talk on complexity. And I believe that, I mean, the amount of complexity that's being added far over shadows any additional security we're getting. There are seats up front. There are lots of seats up front.   But I assure you I'm higher. I see them. So no, actually I think things are getting worse. And I think things are going to get disastrous. That I think there are some major, I mean, we're starting to see them. As complexity is rising, we're seeing large system-wide failures. You know, we had the California Power Grid hacked into. This wasn't possible three years ago because it wasn't on the net. So as more critical systems go on the public network, in this month's cryptogram, which is coming out on Sunday, believe it or not, I talk about computer telephone integration. And the sort of disasters waiting for us when the phone network starts getting the reliability of the internet. You know, I'm not impressed. Oh, let's go right there. You know, the whole book was a surprise to me. And I sort of said this in the forward. I'm writing the book sort of to, I mean, I wanted to write a book about general security to sort of explain how our firewall works, how an IDS works, how cryptography works, to a more general audience.  And I wanted a book that they could read and understand. So, and the book's divided into three parts. The first part I talk about the general environment. You know, what the computer security world looks like. What is the threat? Why is internet different than the real world? Why is it the same? What the attackers look like? You know, what are our security needs? So what's the environment? Second part I talked about the different technologies, you know, ranging from cryptography and steganography and network security things and software security things. And I insulted PKI in there. And, you know, while writing this book, I kept, I started getting more and more disillusioned because I'm like not having any good news. What I'm basically saying is, well, this doesn't work. And this doesn't work. And here's why this doesn't work. And this would never work. And I don't have any, and this does work. So I actually ended up taking a year-long sabbaticals from writing the book because I didn't really want to finish a book that was so negative. And the surprise was, well, what does work? And this is where I go back to the real world. And the real world's kind of surprising because it's an inherently extremely dangerous place. And at the same time, we live in a very safe society. And trying to figure out what is it about our society that makes us safe, right? It's not that we all have personal firewalls, right? Or where body armor, which would be the equivalent. And I looked a lot at the processes of security, very different than the technologies of security, right? I'm safe at my house, not because I have an Uber door lock, right? That doesn't, that's not the reason I'm safe. It's not about the technology. So that was the biggest surprise. And it's a very general surprise. And in part three of the book, I sort of talk about solutions in very generally about different processes. I don't know. I really enjoyed writing the book. It's a fun book to read. There's good jokes in it, but you can't beat. It's cheap. Oh, let's go. How about the second one in? Yes. Yes, yes. Is it, is this the one for the the rental cars? Or is this, that's right. Okay, that's the guy where, right? Using infrared to peer through devices. Questions about wireless NATO 2-11? And that's a great example of what I'm saying. There have been a couple of papers. There's a paper out of Berkeley, which sort of said that the cryptography really stinks. And there was a paper out of, I think, University of Maryland that said basically, well, even if you fix the cryptography, these other security things also stink. As it turns out, it actually doesn't matter because the system is based on a shared password you type in. So no matter how bad those things are, the implementation is actually worse. You can brute force pretty much any NATO 2-11 network that's encrypted, you want. And in any case, most people don't bother encrypting them. So here we, this is a great example. We have an example of a system that's billed as secure because of cool encryption. We learned that the encryption is implemented badly, so it doesn't actually provide nearly the security you think it does. The protocol surrounding the encryption are implemented so badly that even if you fix the encryption, you wouldn't get nearly the security you did. The implementation is so bad that even if you fix those two things, you wouldn't get the security you think you did. And nobody implements the security anyway. So even if you fixed everything, people would use it insecurely. I mean, I don't stand a chance against these kinds of idiots. So no, nothing has changed. And you were not, this was second from the end, you were at the end, so I'm going to go to the person I wanted the first time.  The first one you mentioned is prevention detection and response. There's also laws. Laws do a fourth thing. They add deterrence. Right? Some back channel. You pointed out that laws by definition are issued by governance bodies. And the internet is by nature global. I mean, I talk about this in actually chapter two of my book.  That the fundamental global nature of the net makes a lot of our existing system of doing laws, which are based on proximity.  We know where to arrest me. We know where to try me. You don't have that same kind of proximity when someone's in St. Petersburg attacking city banks computers through France. And that is a big problem and there's no easy solution. There really isn't. It's a very big, it's a big difference. And his last point, it's a very good one, that where are, where are the lobbying groups for the hackers? Well, unfortunately, and I've been involved in this for a bunch of years, we're basically screwed. There's not a whole lot of money lobbying for personal privacy, for liberty, for freedom, for openness, for information sharing. There's lots of people lobbying for closed, for proprietary, for copyright enforcement, for draconian rules for this, that and the other thing, for surveillance. I spend a considerable amount of time doing lobbying for on the good side. And, you know, we get a lot of, we get a lot of air time. I can actually, I can get access to a congressman and talk to them in a way that a company would have to spend a lot of money in campaign contributions to get. So I do get more access because I'm on the side of personal privacy and of freedom and liberty and those are like, you know, good things. But a lot of it unfortunately is lip service. I mean, we saw this in spades in all of these, the DCMA and Napster and digital copyrights. You know, if you look at where the solution space surrounds, it surrounds where the money is. And we have a very, very hard problem. Especially now in the past, you know, to me it's last 20 or so years when lobbying dollars and lobbying to a much greater degree than before makes laws. Lawmakers are much less likely now to do what's right and much more likely to do what gets them votes or money. Actually money, because money, because you can always buy votes. Now, I don't mean that in the bribing people, but in, you know, in paying for a campaign. You know, Americans have very short memories and you just need money. And this is bad. I'm not very optimistic in the near term about us being able to maintain the freedoms and liberties we have in the real world, even maintaining them in cyberspace. You know, let alone getting new freedoms and liberties. We see this in, you know, sometimes we've won. You know, we seem to have beaten back carnivore, but it'll come back under a new name. You know, we, when the DCMA, digital lending copyright came out, I was one of the people fighting for the carve out for research. We got a carve out, but it's so badly defined that doesn't actually work. We've gotten changes in the European Cybercrime Treaty to prevent some of their more draconian surveillance ideas. But these things come back again and again. You never actually win. You know, once the government or the FBI or Disney gets a power, they never actually let go. But if we're fighting for personal freedom every time something happens, we have to keep fighting. And, you know, I wish I was more optimistic. I will continue to fight the good fight, but I am, it is a tough battle. There's a question way in the back. I will not be able to hear you.  Question is about two fish. Let's see. I forget where we were last year. Two fish, which is an algorithm I wrote, was one of the finalists for the AES, which was the government replacement for DES. And I think it was less. I think I talked about the last summer. Last spring, NIST chose a differing algorithm called Ringdall to be AES. It was one of the good ones. I think it was a great choice. I have nothing but good things to say about NIST and the process. What happens to two fish? You know, it's the same thing that happens to all the other algorithms that are out there. It's being used by some people, by some companies, on the two fish web page on the counterpane site. There's a list of products that use two fish. You know, it's out there. It won't get nearly widely as used. I will not get all the fame and glory of being chosen to AES. But it was still way fun. It's free. It's public domain, just like a good half a dozen other algorithms. So it will go on. It will probably fall out of favor in a number of years. It's still good. It's still secure. I still like it. But you know, you really want to use the standard. That's the point of standards. So, you know, if someone was saying, asking me, what should I implement, I would say implement the standard. I was supposed to implement something other than the standard. All right, now that you're closer, how do I feel about SDMI? This is the secure music, secure digital music initiative. Yeah, it's one of the watermarking techniques. I wrote about this in Crypto Game a few months ago, I think.  Let's think about watermarking. It's an interesting idea. The whole notion of there's sort of two ways to do watermarking. The idea is I'll take a digital file that's lossy, you know, an image or music or video, and I'll embed identifying information in it. I can do a positive or negative watermark. I can embed information about you, the legal owner. You buy a copy of the little mermaid, it's got your name embedded in it, and you can't delete it so that if you post it on the net, Disney knows who to sue. That's one way to use a watermark. A bunch of problems with that, one, often the person who commits the crime doesn't have any deep pockets. I mean, I can go out in the street and give some street person $20, say, go in there, buy a digital copy of the little mermaid and give it to me. So now I have a copy with his name on it, no one can sue him, he doesn't have any assets. And that sort of problem pervades. Or I could steal your little copy of the little mermaid and post it. You're not culpable. So the positive watermarks, they don't actually make sense. The negative watermark is where you start putting code in the media player. If this watermark doesn't appear, don't play it. Then you put code in the copying mechanism. If this watermark appears, don't copy. Or more robustly, if a copy is made, the watermark is destroyed. And that's more the SDMI approach. This stuff is really scary. I believe the entertainment companies actually don't like computers because they're much too scary, much too general, much too useful. What they want is what I've termed an internet entertainment platform. That's what they want you to have. Very, very much. Because an internet entertainment platform, they could control. The only way to make this watermark work is to extend the control to the hardware. Because otherwise you'll be able to take it out, you'll be able to manipulate it. The other big problem is actually making the watermark robust. And that's actually very, very hard to do. We don't know how to do that yet. But even assuming you did, I came out very strongly against SDMI. You know, I thought it wouldn't work unless you had these draconian hardware changes. Now all through to the speakers of your stereo. And there was a great article in Discover a number of months ago. I mentioned in Cryptogram where some authors, you know, took SDMI to its logical conclusion. Where you'd have to have these SDMI enabled recorders and speakers. And then you also have to outlaw non-SDMI enabled recorders and speakers. You'd have to actually tag every piece of content. Otherwise the system would fail. This is a tough battle where we're fighting a lot of very, very big money. I mean, and this is companies like Disney that actually had US copyright law changed when the old Disney cartoons were going into the public domain. I mean, this is a lot of lobbying money. And they very strongly believe that digital content is the death of what they own. And they need to control it. I believe the controls won't work. They're causing us all sorts of grief. They're actually hurting computer security in a very general way. And we need, on all fronts, to fight this. I mean, the stuff that was done, you know, I did a testimony for the DCSS case for 20th century magazine. I'm constantly fighting these battles. Constantly writing and speaking about this. Because it's a big deal. You asked a question already. You didn't. Or if you did, I don't remember you. Can I explain the vulnerability and solitaire? Not without graduate mathematics. Actually, I can. For people who don't know, this is sort of a fun story. I did an encryption. This is something I've been trying to do for years. I wanted to come up with an encryption algorithm that you could use in the field. That you could implement with pencil and paper, yet would be secure against computers. The notion would be some spy in a third world country. Would need to encrypt messages back home. And would be concerned about the secret police. And for a while, I worked on algorithms that involve pocket calculators. And weird and transcendental functions. Trying to get something that was useful. And I don't know, some time it came to me that a deck of cards is actually a really cool, easy way to store a permutation. A 54 element permutation, including the jokers. And so I built an algorithm around, okay, you have an announcement? All right. Is it important enough? So I built an algorithm around a deck of cards called a solitaire. Some time around when I was finishing the work, I was talking to Neil Stevenson, who, and I told him the story, he said, cool, I put that in my next book. And that's kind of neat. So the algorithm appears in the book. I wrote, I have an appendix in Neil Stevenson. This is in kryptonamicon. I have an appendix in his book. I did a couple of book signings with him in Chicago and Minneapolis. And I learned much to my chagrin that cyberpunk writers get way better groupies than cryptographers do. Buy a lot. And so the algorithm is there. About a year ago, maybe a year and a half ago, someone pointed out that there is a, there is a bias in the output. It's not really a vulnerability. We haven't actually been able to break messages using the bias. But it's certainly something I should fix. And I am in my copious free time going to come out with solitaire too. Basically, the output is not as random as it should be because of the way the mechanisms work. There is a pretty easy fix. But actually I want to test the fix a lot more than has to the first fix. You know, once you start attaching yourself to somebody's book, suddenly you're behoove to the fiction publishing schedule. Which sort of was a surprise. But you know, there is, there's a lot of math to the vote, to the, to the vulnerability. But that's the basic intuition. There's a bias in the output. And now we pause for a very, very special announcement. I think he's going to yell at you for something. Oh, you're good. By the way, cryptographers do it mathematically. I don't know, you're the cryptographer. The question was, was it a plus or minus? So all you girls out there, flock him later. That's correct. We don't want any K girls. We want G girls. I'm sorry. No, someone else said something about copulation. Okay, I'm sorry. I thought I was putting Bruce under class or something like that. Okay. Yeah, I'm actually here to yell at you. What a surprise. It's already 1135. And this will be my second yelling of the day. There are people walking around right now, strongly encouraging you with flyers and so on and so forth to cause various mayhem and discontent within the hotel. They're also encouraging you to beat up the staff and pick on the feds. Thank you, citizen. Jay, I would strongly encourage you not to do that. I would also strongly encourage you to, as non violently as possible, discourage these individuals from doing that. We like this hotel. This hotel kind of likes us at this point. Does anyone not want to be here next year to show hands? Okay, very funny. A couple smart asses in the back.  Did you waving it? Hi, how are you? Good to see you. Okay, stand up, sir. Go ahead, sir.  Now you better back it up. Open season. Well, you see, it's kind of funny you mentioned that because obviously this speech is meant for you. It's kind of like the caution hot signs on the McDonald's coffees. We're supposed to be the bright folk, right? The uber hackers, right? You know, the smart ones. If you think you should be banging rocks together in the parking lot to make fire, the newbie track is downstairs. I mean that jokingly. My four-year-old niece can break lights and steal the soapboxes out of the bathrooms. Okay? I expect you people to be hacking the PBX. Not that I'm advocating that you hack the PBX, but at least not this hotels. I expect you to be breaking his algorithms. I don't expect you to be stealing light bulbs. And think about it. If you're stealing the soap dispensers from the bathroom, you probably should be washing your hands because you're obviously one of those guys. We have a special room for you. It's got some rope ladders and some swings, bananas. You can throw feces at each other. Kind of like the Telco guys, you know, at PacBall and stuff like that. Seriously, please. We like this hotel. This hotel has been very good to us. As I mentioned before, unless you want to be in Salt Lake City, Utah, next convention, and if you're not Mormon, take it from me.  I've been there in the dead of winter, and it sucked, and I'm not Mormon. Not that Mormonism is a bad thing. We're going to get kicked out, and that kind of stuff has just got to stop. So please, one, encourage your friends to return the lights they've stolen in the soap dispensers. You have a general amnesty on anything you've taken. Bring it to me or one of the other staff. We will not beat you. We will not get angry at you. We will not yell at you.  But you can bring it back with impunity. We just want to give it back to the hotel.   And we can't do anything about that. But there's a whole Darwin thing going on there. So actually, let me take that back.  Open season. Please.  You are authorized up to and including tactical nuclear devices. Again, please encourage them to stop. Please encourage them to give the stuff back. And please, con responsibly. I realize we're all a bunch of 13-year-olds of all ages. But let's be smart 13-year-olds, okay? Let's not be 4-year-olds. Are there any questions? Sorry, are there any smart questions? Anyone? Yes, sir. You need to talk to me right now. No questions? None at all? I turn it back to the very sexy Bruce. Actually, he's got a point. It's tough because we're sort of walking a fine line between what's legal and illegal, what's allowed and not allowed. Sort of where you walk the line and where you don't. So it determines whether this conference lives and or dies. And I kind of like it. And if you guys like it, stick around. Oh, actually, so you've listened. Do you know what kind of questions to ask? Where'd you go? You left. Oh, well. Guess it wasn't the right kind of questions. Oh, let's go for the red shirt. It's a real good question. People didn't hear it. He's asking about, well, if SDMA and cop protection doesn't work, certainly the immediate companies are afraid they're going to lose their content and they're going to stop producing it. So what will work? It's an interesting question. I did, there's a paper I wrote called Street Performer Protocol. It's on my publications page where I looked at this question. The basic idea is, is there any way to make money with content other than the scarcity model? But the whole model that the music industry, the movie industry is selling the each. Right? Selling the CD, selling the tape, selling the performance. And how else can you make money?  I mean, television is a great example. Television never worked on the selling the each model. You bought a TV, you turn it on, and you got all the content for free. So there was an advertising model that made that work. You go to public television, there's a public funding model that makes that work. And you wander around, there are lots of other models. There's a recency model. Right? Bloomberg stock data is free. But if you want it in the next 10 seconds, you're going to pay for it. Another interesting model. You know, look at the Grateful Dead. Giving away concert tapes. It's okay to tape the concert, it's okay to give it away. We're going to sell the live performances, but we're going to give away the content of those performances. There's patronage funding, Stephen King saying, you know, I'm going to write this book. I want you to pay me when you download it. If you pay me, I'll write it. If you don't, I won't. But you can do that. The newspaper is a good example. You know, when you buy a newspaper, you don't actually pay for the newspaper. That quarter or 30 cents is sort of just a price of admission. It actually costs a lot more to make a paper. But it's mostly an advertising model. And it's also an aggregation model. Someone might be buying the Corsair puzzle. Someone else is buying the sports section. Someone else is buying the movie listings. But the paper is sold as a coherent whole because each part ends up subsidizing the whole. And you could go on the website and get all that content for free. But you want it in a paper form. So what you're buying is the packaging. So yes, there are lots of other models. They're different models. I believe fundamentally digital content changes the rules of content. Because bits are copyable. I'm sorry. They are. We cannot change that. It's like making water not wet. And those businesses that will thrive in the digital media age are those that align their profits with the natural laws. And not those that try to fight it with the DCMA, with SDMI, with all of these basically dykes that are trying to hold back the tide. The tide will come. So just try to think smart. How can we make money despite? I love the bands that will perform and say, you know, we want to make a CD. So we're going to, we want to pre-sell it because we need money to make it. I mean, there's an example. They could give it, they could actually actually give the CD away. In a lot of ways my book, when I was a consultant, was an 800-page business card. I would have, you know, if Wiley didn't own the rights, I would have given my book away because it got me consulting work. So yes, there are lots of other ways to make money that aren't selling the each, that aren't the scarcity model. But you've got to think about them. And unfortunately, the record companies and media companies want to protect an enormously draconian business where they screw a lot of artists, where they make a lot of money, and they do it in the way they're used to doing it, and they don't want to think differently. They want to think the same. Oh, who do I like? Let's go to someone I can hear, right there. No, you. Yes, you. No, no, no, you. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. There's a couple of points I'll talk about. One is the notion of due diligence. And yes, there is one in cyberspace. We don't know what it is yet. You know, basically due diligence these days is, don't do any worse than your neighbor.  It means we bought a firewall, maybe we have an IDS. It doesn't mean we're actually secure. Because that's what the minimal standard is, right? The more interesting point you made in the beginning where you said, you know, am I calling for more law? Those are heard me yesterday. I talked about the need for law enforcement. Am I calling for more laws? I'm actually not. We're now in a society where technology changes too fast for laws to catch up. You know, back in the previous century, certainly the first half of the previous century, you had very few technological advances that happened very slowly. So you could really invent a telephone and then take five or six years to figure out what are wiretapping laws? What is, you know, what does search and seizure look like on a telephone? You know, what's there between eavesdropping and trap and trace? And that's exactly what happened. And it took a good long time. Changes are happening too fast now for that. We actually need laws that are technologically invariant. And I didn't make this point yesterday, and this is the point I actually will make when I go in front of the congressional committee on Monday. Laws need to be technology invariant. If we make technologically specific laws, they will become obsolete in a year, in two years, in six months. And in a lot of ways, we have all the laws we need. Right? Breaking and entering is a crime. We don't need a cyber breaking and entering law. We've already got a breaking and entering law. We've already got a harassment law. But we've already got laws against, oh, confidence tricking. You know, we've already got pornography laws. We don't need new ones. We don't because the internet shouldn't have different laws. It should have the same laws. They just need to be applied in a reasonable manner into this new environment. And this is going to happen more and more. Right? Peer to peer is now different. You start getting new things on the net. You know, it'll be interactive video soon. Is that different?  It needs to be the same. So I'm not advocating more laws. I mean, I don't, whenever Congress starts making laws, I get worried. Because then you've got all of the lobbying. Right? You've got all the influences on the law. I'd rather have the courts figure out how to prescribe the laws. Right? How to implement the laws in a coherent fashion. I'm much more confident that will be done fairly. Nothing is perfect. We're going to be screwed little bits here and there no matter what. But I think we have a better chance of getting out of this okay if we let the courts do it rather than the, rather than Congress. Or, you know, like the president or something. You know, there's a problem of taking defense in your own hands. It's very jurisdictionally isolated. Right? Things that we can do in the United States are very different things you can do in France. Which are very different things you can do in Saudi Arabia. So those laws, you know, what is taking your defense in your own hands mean is different. I wrote a little bit about a counterattack in cryptogram like two months ago. The notion of not just defending yourself as being in a hard shell, but actually actively defending yourself, retaliating. Which is sort of what your analogy is of having a gun for personal defense. I mean, you're using an offensive weapon to retaliate against an attacker in defense. It's real hard to do on the net. You know, we can go through the technical reasons, but they're there. Presumably this will become easier.   Right? That's going to be a big issue, especially on the net, where people can cloak themselves and other people, where people can steal other people's identities. So we're going to have to deal with that. I mean, what constitutes enough probable cause that a citizen can retaliate? You're going to have the jurisdictional boundaries. An attacker coming from this country versus that country, going through a third country. You know, I believe we are going to have international cyberspace laws and treaties. We have to. But still there are going to be lots of domestic sensibilities. And it'll be domestic sensibilities about content.  Maybe you're Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or the United States. You know, there'll be major differences in what's considered proper. And my fear is we're going to get the net that's the lowest common denominator. You know, when the government of Germany complains to eBay about having Nazi memorabilia on sale, I don't want the solution to be for it to disappear from the entire world. Because then you end up with the minimum of what everybody allows. What you want is the maximum. This is hard to do. I mean, and I don't think we're going to solve it any time soon. But those are some of the issues that you have to deal with. You know, I'd love to get your question. I'm not going to hear it unless you're really, really loud. Yeah, yeah. I don't speak sign language and my interpreter left. I know that's a yes. You know, who's the global lawmaker? Don't know. I mean, there are any number of candidates, right? You know, the UN has tried to do some of this. G7 has tried to do some of this. I can, right? I mean, the commercial world has tried to do some of this. ITF has tried to do some of this. I don't know.  You know, if you look at some of the really good global laws, a lot of them are just informal treaties. You look at GAT. You look at a lot of the maritime bills of lading. There's an enormous amount of international law involving shipping. What it means for to buy a product on their dock and have it shipped across an ocean to your dock? Who, what happens in the middle? And there's their commodities like oil, which might change ownership seven or eight times as the tanker goes from point A to point B. Now there's no global body that establishes these rules and laws. It's conventions, it's agreements, it's treaties. So you're probably going to have some sort of mishmash like that. I mean, it would be great if the world government could do it, but we ain't got no world government, and it ain't coming anytime soon.  But, you know, there's too much minutia. Yeah, and some of the, right, and some of those some of those other ways are more distributed, some of the bilateral treaties, the IETF type solutions. Yeah, and policies do in many areas of commerce that end up not being laws, but they're common practices. You get odd, you get odd collisions though. You know, there's, when a typewriter was invented, there was a lot, a number of years where we figured out what it meant to have a type written contract. If you think about it, contracts are handwritten, so you know who wrote it, and they're signed. What does it mean when a contract is typed? Can it be forged? Do you have to sign every page or just the last page? Which is actually a really good question. And there are some countries that are signed every page countries, and they're countries like the United States which are just signed the last page countries. And there were cases where there were contracts where one jurisdiction held them invalid and one jurisdiction held them valid. Because of the different rules about what it meant to sign a contract. So, I think you're going to have those sorts of distributed conventions, if not laws. Or maybe formalized into treaties, maybe just business conventions. I mean a lot of what the oil industry does are conventions. They just know how they do business, and it's the way it works. You get that a lot of trading floors. You know, go visit the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ. There are no, there aren't laws that govern what goes on in the pits. But there are very strong conventions. And they have dispute resolution. It's all like a government, except it's private. So, yeah, you could have some of that. And there are examples of that working and failing. The net's so tough because it's so global. I mean you guys are in it.  If everybody was a good sheep, you wouldn't need copy protection. But there are always people who are going to push the rules. And this is a good thing. I'm not saying this is bad. But you'll always have an element that'll push the rules. So they'll always be the drive to make the rules more formal and more enforceable. I have to go. It's time. I am here all weekend. Most likely I'm outside because I like, actually I like the hot sun. Again, I have flyers for my newsletter in the four corners. They're there, they're there, or you can give me a business card or email address. Thanks for listening. This is, I mean this is, this is always fun. I love doing this. Thanks.


Are you a skilled magician? Why not make a video about it so that you can reach more audiences? On today's episode, you're in luck. Hey Freedom, what's up? My name is Nolden, welcome to Freedom Central, the home of all freedom content. On today's episode, we will be talking about the basic things that you will need to take into consideration when you want to make your own video recording for your magic live shows. I'm able to give you tips and tricks on how you can get started with that first official magic video. Before we do that guys, you know what to do, like, subscribe, and gong that bell. And now, on today's episode of Freedom, quick tips. Number one is angle your camera carefully. It is extremely important to angle the camera in a position that does not compromise your magic trick, because the camera will be where your audience will be looking from. The camera needs to be in a place where your audience can see clearly. Number two is for mystical feels, add those mystery sounds. Magical feels is right my friends. You want to know why? Well guys, let me tell you, it's because magic is a mystery, and to add more guile to your magic trick, you need to insert mysterious background music as well. Check out all those successful magician videos, most of them have those mysterious background music. So get to it guys. Number three is close up on the trick. As we have said, you need to make things clear for your audience, place them in an area where they can see how the trick is being done. And don't forget to do the close ups. Close up magic is the best kind of magic you can perform because the magician can easily divert their attention to a spot that he wants to, so that he can set up the other trick in another spot. Number four is ad narration. Just performing the trick is half the fun. The second half would be narrating how the trick would go, and you can use that to redirect their attention. It's all about misdirection right? Well, you gotta need all the misdirection you can conjure up when you record your magic tricks. That's the main reason why you need to add narration. That's the main reason why you need to add narration. And basically, it's better that way. It would feel that the viewers are not just watching a trick, they are with the magician performing a magic trick for them. Do you think that there are other elements here that should be added on this episode? Let me know down below. Also guys, don't forget to share this to your friends who are magicians who wants to create their own first magic video. Maybe in the long run, you can help them out with this video. Before you leave guys, please don't forget to leave a like, subscribe, and gong that bell. My name is Noel, guys, bringing you tips on how to grow your channel. Always, always remember, freedom. Quick tips. I'm gonna be seeing you guys in the next episode. Goodbye.


This study examined the multi-fractal scaling behavior and efficiency of green finance markets compared to traditional markets such as gold, crude oil, and natural gas. It found evidence of both efficiency and inefficiency in the green finance markets with some indications of arbitrage opportunities for investors. Additionally, it found evidence of negative autocorrelations in the crude oil market, the clean energy fuels index, the global clean energy index, the gold market, and the natural gas market. This article was authored by Roy Diaz, Nicole Horta, and Mariana Shambino.


A man in co-hacid has been charged with animal cruelty after being accused of shooting two of his neighbor's pet cats. Lakeland News reporter Cheryl Moore has more on the case that's making headlines across Minnesota. I have this little memorial set up to Olivia because I wasn't ever able to get her body. Pam Dowell says she's always been a cat lover. One day, two of her cats went missing named Olivia and Emerald along with her neighbor's cat Pumpkin. Dowell later went to the police after she heard a voice recording of her neighbor Stephen Michele admit to killing the cats. According to a police report, Michele admitted to investigators that he did hate cats and would shoot at them, but only admitted to shooting two of the three missing cats. He said that although he shot at them, he didn't mean to kill them. He's been charged with three counts of animal cruelty, including a felony count. If convicted, the maximum penalty is two years in prison or a $5,000 fine. Take great pride in my care for and love for my pets. I take great pride in my neighborhood. I think this was a senseless, senseless act of violence. It's hard to believe that someone would do that to a pet and that a neighbor would do that. We reached out to Michele to get his side of the story. He refused to go on camera, but gave a statement saying, Dean Sheriff has talked to Pam on more than one occasion about feeding feral cats and they have attracted a bear and skunks. The city of Cohasit is in the know of what Dean Sheriff has talked to Pam about. Dean Sheriff is the security officer at the city of Cohasit. In a phone interview, he says the city is intending to stay neutral in the case and is leaving the investigation up to the police. He also wants to reiterate the city does not have a feral cat problem.  You know, obviously it's been charged accordingly and we'll see what the outcome is when it's all said and done as well. Michele gave us his lawyer's number for further comments. We reached out to the law office who told us they have dropped Michele as a client due to a conflict of interest. Animal folks in Minnesota is also involved in the case. When asked for comment, they gave us a statement reading, crimes against animals must be taken seriously. Not only can this incident result in pain, suffering or death for the animal, these types of crimes can escalate to violence against humans. Dall has now put her house up for sale. She hopes by sharing her story, people will understand this against Minnesota law to kill people's pets. If you believe that a pet or an animal is a nuisance, you have the duty and obligation to call law enforcement or animal control. You do not have the right to pick up a gun. Reporting in Cohasit, Sheryl Moore, Lakeland News. Michele says he would be willing to go on camera after his court date. He's scheduled to appear in front of a judge on December 27th. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


So I want to tell you something today, but gotta keep it a secret this this this can't get out Okay, this is just between you and me me and you no one else is allowed to know I'm going to tell you guys the secret on getting first in line every single time with the take a master smart cue, but No, Sharon not allowed can't tell anyone just do I all right? Let's discuss. What's up guys? Welcome back? My name is stress here on thumbs up robbery time about buying tickets selling tickets Make sure that you have all the fun with your tickets today We're talking about a secret a deep dark secret hidden away in the broker world where no one talks about it because this This is how you you get ahead of everybody else This is all about how to get first in line in the taking master smart cue every single time This is the big one. Okay. We we gotta be really careful here I don't want to I really can want to share this with everybody But you know you guys my big greatest fans and I feel like it's only fair that I share this information with you And honestly, it's not that hard at all. It's only three steps to it, but they're very very secretive So again, don't share this video with anybody Capiche let's get started step one must use a mobile device Okay, there is some secrets going on in the ticket master algorithm and everything that's going on there But if you use a mobile device, you can guarantee yourself first place in line every single time Okay, it doesn't work on the computer won't work on your iPad cannot be some weirdo Microsoft tablet whatever else is going on there anything else though. I cannot guarantee that it's going to work Okay, so step one all well and clear you're using your mobile device. All right now number two They've got to be a relatively large band or artist this event cannot be some small time one off event This has got to be the big show pretty well. No, they've been around for a while They have to be pretty popular the reason I say has to be a relatively large band or artist because the algorithm works in such A way that it will give you that bonus edge if they are a larger artist I found with larger events and with being able to use my mobile device and the following step at the end that we use To kind of shimmy our way through the line This is like the perfect combination for actually being able to jump ahead in the queue every single time So we got your mobile device and you got your artist or band in mind that you're gonna be using and that's that's the base Okay, so that's how we get ourselves started. All right Now I'm gonna go through a live run here to prove to you that this will work every single time now I'm holding on to that third step. I'm not gonna tell you what that is just yet So pay attention, but first let's let's take a look. All right. I'm gonna show you I'm not just making this up This is gonna work 100% of the time every time no matter what now the artist I've selected for tonight is actually the Rolling Stones. So, you know, they're I would say they're relatively large They're well known.  All right, so we got our artist. We got our mobile device Now we're gonna get started. Okay, so what I'm gonna do I'm gonna jump in to Ticketmaster. I'm gonna search for the Rolling Stones.  Let's try this one here forward feel rolling stones using my mobile device Hitting that big blue button to join the queue waiting waiting waiting. Let's see what queue spot I get this time Number one baby. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, number one. We did it. We got first in line. We jumped the queue We are the best. All right now still don't believe me. Let's let's let's try one more. Okay. Let's try one more I know you guys don't believe me. Let's let's try one more. Okay, Mercedes Benz Stadium I'm gonna go ahead hit that big blue button join the queue Waiting waiting waiting. Let's see where we where we end up. Shall we look at that number one? Oh, yeah, number one every time all the time This is how you get first in line every single time. Are you guys interested in what step number three is step number three is to Subscribe subscribe to this channel because you've all been gapped. What's going on here? Like I said rolling stones They just announced that they have rescheduled many of their dates as well as announcing a couple of new shows and Because of this what they've done is they've said hey we're gonna get all our tickets to go back on sale with these new dates and Because they are a larger event. They are a larger, you know, they're they're a relatively big performer There is quite a bit of traffic looking at tickets for their events And because of that there is so much traffic that they've created a queue Regardless of whether the tickets actually went on sale or not at this point doesn't matter There's just too much traffic So they're trying to control the flow of moving into the ticketmaster queue getting into those events buying those tickets This queue is really just there now in place regardless before you can get into any of the Rolling Stone events And it's just gonna be there Basically until the end of time potentially, you know, they are gonna remove this eventually But for now there is a queue in place and because of that There is currently not a whole lot of traffic going in and the evenings allowing me to then get first in line every single time I Didn't want to make this such a gotcha, but I Think I got a few of you. Maybe let me know did I get you guys? Yes? No? Let me know in the comments down below Really the purpose of this video though is really just to tell you and reinforce the point that you can't actually jump the queue Ticketmaster has designed the queue in such a way that there is no magical formula used to get yourself to the front Unfortunately, it's just not designed that way It is completely luck of the draw and the only way to really improve your odds is to watch a bunch of these videos That I do have up over here as well as having more lottery balls in that bucket to give yourself the best chance It's possible to be one of the few who will be at the front of the queue didn't mean for that to run Basically, you're trying to buy some tickets. You have to go through the queue It's better if you and three four five a bunch of your friends all try to get tickets at the exact same time for the Same event that way potentially one of you may actually get all the way in the front of the queue while the others Maybe mixed throughout the line itself That's really the only way you can give yourself the best opportunity to get first in line because otherwise It's really totally random. I know it's not what you guys were expecting out of this video But I did want to hammer home the point that it's actually not possible to get first in queue every single time Now if you do want to pump up your comments a little bit You can go ahead try and do this with the Rolling Stones or a few other larger artists that do release new seats You can certainly go ahead do this pump up that confidence make it feel like oh, yeah first in line first in line first in line First in line do it a bunch of times might make you feel like oh, yeah I'm gonna get it first in line every single time when I go and buy those tickets if you manage to stick around to this point of The video one quick update Toronto Blue Jays they have recently announced on July 30th They will be allowing fans back into the stadium So I myself will be in attendance at this first game in Toronto against the Kansas City Royals If you guys are gonna be at that game as well Definitely reach out to me Instagram Twitter at thumbs up run See if maybe we could hang out for a bit chat for a little bit discuss tickets all that fun stuff I'll be there so it will be a great time for all if you guys enjoyed this video Definitely let me know by hitting the like button down below also sure subscribe Have it already great new content coming up every single week it see guys next time