Live from San Francisco, California, it's theCUBE at VMworld 2014. Brought to you by VMware, Cisco, EMC, HP, and Nutanix. Now here are your hosts, John Furrier and Dave Vellante. Okay, welcome back everyone. Live in San Francisco, this is theCUBE, our flagship program. We go out to the events, we have an instructor, Susan Linois, some say the ESPN of tech, as Dave Vellante and I always say. We'd love to go out, talk to the tech athletes, I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante, my co-host. We'd love to talk to the experts, we'd love to talk to the CEOs, and of course, get all the relevant content and data, share that with you, and our next guest is Craig McLucky, who's the product manager at Google, with really this announcement around Kubernetes with the Docker integration. Actually it's a very sexy, relevant announcement for VMware to be in the mainstream cloud, embracing Open, embracing Docker, embracing containers, really is a shot across the bow for their entire company and ecosystem that hey, they want to go cloud, they want to do it right, welcome to theCUBE. Thank you. So I've been to pretty much all the Google IOs there have been, I didn't go this year, but just because conflicts, but Google's culture, very engineering centric, very innovative, they do things their way from their IPO to whatever, but Google Cloud has been out for multiple years, Google Compute Engine, App Engine, certainly before that, real core competency in the cloud, and Google is the cloud. And we're the only cloud company. And certainly the ethos of open source, absolutely ingrained in Google's culture. They just plow through the fields, minding their own business innovating. So being involved in this announcement to me really is a game-changing statement for VMware, because Google's an innovator, and Google's kind of picky to who they work with. So comment on the Google relationship here at VMworld, why is it so important? Kubernetes, obviously open source cluster management, VMware essentially embracing, some say maybe extending, but you can't do that in open source. What's your take on all this? All right, so at Google, obviously, we have a growing cloud business that we're very serious about. We've put a lot of effort into building out a series of very high quality cloud products. And one of the things that's become increasingly clear to us as a company as we've progressed from supporting the sort of modern internet companies towards supporting more of a enterprise-type environment is that our customers demand choice. They really are invested in multi-cloud environments, multi-cloud worlds. And we have to find a way to meet them where they are and provide them a framework to actually move to a more progressive and more cloud-native way of thinking about building their applications. And so this announcement is really important to us because it gives us an opportunity to extend the reach of our technology and to take technology that's been born in the Google environment and pioneered over a decade in running at sort of internet-scale, hyper-scale, and bring it to enterprises in a way that is comfortable for those enterprises and let's just meet the enterprises where they are. So I got to ask more about specifically the propensity for old versus new. Google always does things have new way, as I mentioned on the intro. What do you like about the VMware announcement? I mean, why are you guys here? What's the big deal? I like the idea of, we are a cloud-native company and one of the things that I've learned over my time here at Google is that we can go and speak to a sort of a bank or a corporate customer. And if we enter that sort of situation, we provide very progressive, forward-looking statements. They want to go there but they don't know how. They don't know how to go from where they are today running in a mainstream VM-based environment with a Generation 2 architecture to get to that Gen 3 space. And for many of them, it's a bridge too far. But what we're doing here with VMware and with a number of other partners, Microsoft, IBM, Red Hat, and others, is bringing Google's way of thinking about technology delivery to mainstream enterprise. And so it's really creating that bridge so that people can move from the old to the new in a comfortable fashion. All right, so let's break down the news at hit. Yesterday, just take us through the quick highlights, read or digest what was announced and your involvement. All right, so Google a few months back introduced a new technology called Kubernetes. Kubernetes is an open source cluster manager licensed on the Apache license that is intended to bring Google style application management to a multi-cloud environment. And what we announced yesterday was VMware's participation in the Kubernetes program which meant that the Kubernetes technology, this new container-based cloud native way of thinking about developing applications is now available to VMware customers everywhere. That's a great part of the announcement. The thing that's even more exciting in a way is that VMware is not just committed to providing support to their existing customers. VMware is also contributing technology directly to Kubernetes to make it better. So they're doing deep integration with the Open V-Switch initiative to make sure that it works really well in the software defined data center. And what have you guys found in the open source community? Because one of the things that I found with Docker in breaking it down to folks that aren't super technical is that the community aspect of the code sharing is really a fundamental feature of this, right? It's not like about containers, right? I mean, we have the engagement container with CrowdChat. Containers do make sense in this always-on real-time world, certainly with the cloud and DevOps, but it's the DevOps kind of ethos of open source. Can you comment on why that's important? How the sharing is now part of the code base? I think it's an incredibly important idea because closed systems, if you're invested in building a closed system, if you're a technology company and you create this closed ecosystem, you're taking responsibility for everything. So you're taking responsibility for your tools, taking responsibility for the platform, for the infrastructure, for everything. With these open source initiatives and these open ecosystems, you're empowered by the ecosystem. You actually get contributions from everyone. Your technology gets better, but you also have an open surface area in which other people can innovate and find new ways to use your technology to accelerate it. So for instance, with Kubernetes, we use Docker extensively as our packaging framework. We love what the Docker guys have done to make containers more accessible. Explain for the layman out, the layman developer, how this works, just sharing a piece for Docker and specifically, can you describe that? Because it's a little bit unique, but it's still open source. So Docker is a packaging format and a runtime environment for Linux application containers. So what you can do is you can take all of your code, you can package it up into a container and then you can run it in the Docker environment. Now Docker is open source and the Docker crew have worked very hard to make sure that Docker works very well everywhere. So one of the lovely things about Docker is you can take it, you can build a package on your laptop, run your code, make sure it works and then forklift it into a cloud of your choice and have a very high degree of confidence that's going to run effectively there. And it's entirely accelerated by the open source community. It's been embraced by a very broad array of partners, everyone like Red Hat, ChloroS, you name it, folks are embracing Docker and actually bringing that open container format to their environment. I was talking to some developers, some really well-respected developers in Silicon Valley and they said, the thing about Docker is it's hard not to share in Docker because you're actually penalized for not sharing. What do you mean by that? I mean I don't, is it just like open source, sometimes you gave up a storage, you put your stuff around it and you say, okay, that's my product, I'm not going to share that, but in Docker it's a little bit different, isn't it? Can you explain that? So the interesting thing with Docker is that it's a couple of things. The first thing it is, is it's this runtime that lets you build something and then run it anywhere you want. But the second piece of it is, is that it's a platform which lets you build on other people's work. So you can take a piece of code and publish it to the Docker registry and then someone else can discover it, take it, extend it and use it. Now by putting it out there, you're obviously going to get a lot of use, but you're also going to get other people building on top of it and doing things that you might find useful yourself. This is one of the things that Google's consistently found with the open source communities. If you put something out there, people take it, they'll make it better and a year later you bring it back in and it actually makes your life a lot better too. So Docker's created this very strong framework for code reuse that's going gangbusters. The flywheel definitely is going on, absolutely. So this idea of right wants, run anywhere is obviously very powerful. What you said was that you're bringing this Google style of application management to a multi-cloud environment. So that to me is also a very powerful statement because you're defining cloud very broadly. You're defining cloud like the half a million VMware customers define cloud. You're including what they're doing on premise. Can you talk about that philosophy which is different from some others? Yeah, so for us, the reality is that we believe at Google we have the best infrastructure in the world. We believe that it's quantifiably better than anything else you can buy and we feel really good about the quality of infrastructure. And so as a business we're invested in succeeding by creating a platform that attracts people to us and lets them benefit from our infrastructure. So we are incented to openness and we find that our customers demand openness and it actually creates an environment where we have much more access to a much broader customer base because they want to run in multiple cloud environments. They want to run with two public cloud providers. They want to run in a hybrid cloud environment. And with what we're doing with Kubernetes is we're inviting the community to work with us to produce a Google style way of running applications that works well for them everywhere. We could do it ourselves, we have amazing technology but most of our customers aren't interested unless they can take it and actually get their hands on it and build it and integrate it and run it and use it. And so we're trying to do something quite different with our next generation of cloud offerings at Google. We're inviting the community to participate. We're inviting the community to get involved right at the early days and to help define the APIs and help define the tool chains and be real owners of the code that we're producing so that they can shape the shape of that cloud product that we offer. So Craig, you said your cloud you believe is quantifiably better than anything else that you can buy. Can you help unpack that a little bit? How do you quantify that for customers? You know, one example of this was some time ago when I announced Google Compute Engine we brought up a company on stage that broke the World Terrasol record on our basic data map. That was MapR. That was MapR, yeah. MapR's first big benchmark. We covered that, we had that. And so that was quantifiably better than anything that existed in the space. The cross-sectional bandwidth and network capabilities, the boot time, there's a lot of properties of the Google Cloud that are very difficult to replicate elsewhere. We have some really great technology. And so our invitation is to our customers, come and try it, we think you're going to like it. We're not going to try to lock you in but if we can provide a framework where you're running on open technologies, you're using open APIs, makes it a lot easier for you to come and use our platform. Can you talk about the security model and Kubernetes and how should we be thinking about security differently? I actually think that's a great question and I think this is a very topical point. There's really two schools of thoughts around container-based security. There's the one school of thought which says that the Linux container environment is sufficiently robust to support multi-tenant security and there's another school of thought which says things that's not. At Google we tend to be quite conservative in terms of the sort of security dimension and when I look at the Linux Cisco interface, it's a very broad and it's a relatively hard to defend surface area and we see one to two elevation of privilege exploits a year that would let someone that was running in a container actually break out of the container boundary. So for us on Google Cloud Platform, we always run containers in a single tenant VM that we'll pack those containers in really efficiently to get every ounce out of that physical piece of resource that you've got. Okay, so you guys, like I said, you're conservative, maybe sort of skeptics of traditional security models and maybe that's too strong a statement but how about network, how about the networking aspect? How should we be thinking about networking differently in this world? That's actually a great point and I think that networking is going to be absolutely crucial. One of the things I've really been excited to see with VMware is that they're bringing the SDN based model to Kubernetes. One of the hardest things for us is, you know, obviously everything inside Google is software fine networking and as we think about the way that we build and run applications, it's very easy for us to, for instance, deploy a set of containers and assign an IP and then do very fine game control of what can talk to what but our customers were struggling with this model when they were running in other environments. You know, some of the older architecture clouds didn't offer some of that flexibility around networking and so what VMware is doing with the Open V switch initiative and their NSX integration is actually providing deep SDN integration so that you can align the container with the actual network SDN definition and then your scheduler can actually wire everything together very nicely and so you'll be able to very easily and comfortably integrate full SDN sort of network partitioning, you know, instead of having to do weird port mapping between, you know, inside of the container, you'll be able to get a very effective way of actually controlling who can speak to what and creating these partition networks for your applications. Now, it sounds like Google's philosophy on cloud is very open, inclusive. I mean, you've got two ends of the spectrum. Amazon on one end says, you know, everything will go to the public cloud. You talk to Joe Tucci and it's, you know, hybrid, hybrid, hybrid. What's Google's position on sort of that spectrum? It sounds like you're less dogmatic, you know? On the left side of that spectrum. Well, we try to be pragmatic and, you know, the reality is we think that in the future most people will want to run in a public cloud. We think that the cost advantages, economies of scale, and outright performance is going to make it a no brainer for most people. But we want to be pragmatic about it. We recognize that it's going to take years to get there and there's a lot of constraints and frankly, a lot of customers want to have multi vendor relationships and so we have to be open. We have to make sure that we're not attempting to lock our customers in and that anything we do, there's a reasonable alternative, you know, out there in the open ecosystem to use. So I wonder if I could follow up on that because there's a prevailing sentiment with amongst enterprise customers that renting is always going to be more expensive than owning. Personally, I don't agree. I think the marginal economics of the cloud at volume are going to be so compelling that renting is actually going to be less expensive long-term and only because of the volume aspects of it. Having said that, again, there's a lot of debates there. You've said earlier, Craig, you believe that ultimately most of the world, much of the world is going to move to that cloud because it's going to be more cost-effective. Why will it be more cost-effective? Is it that sort of volume play? Is it that just you guys do things better? You have more resources? The fundamental economics. I think there's a basic economics. They run the biggest cloud in the world.  What are the fundamental economics of that that are driving your thinking is really what you're trying to get to? I think there's several things. I think there's operational efficiency. We're able to, we have an incredibly streamlined supply chain management provisioning deployment process. So the operational overheads, amortized out over the volumes that we run are great. The economics of power, construction, location are going to fundamentally change things. If you're building mega data centers next to dams and you have preferred agreements, power is a major driver of cost. Most corporate data centers are going to be running on commercial power. That's two, three, four times more expensive than what you're getting with those facilities.  The ability to negotiate great rates with your suppliers. But a lot of it's also going to be just being able to bring differentiated technology to bear. It's hard for people to do fully provisioned, high-end SDN rollouts. It's hard for people to provision an heterogeneous fleet that's highly tuned to different workloads. There's things you can do at scale that you just couldn't do anywhere else. And we're going to continue, we reduce prices aggressively quite recently and that's benefited all of the cloud customers. And we're not done. We'll continue to push down the economics and I think it's going to become very favorable. Last question, John, if I may. So in history of the industry, you've seen a winner takes all. Microsoft won and the software Intel wins and the hardware will cloud be a winner take all? Why are we not? I don't think so. I don't think it will be a winner take all. I think that customers ultimately demand choice. And most customers aren't going to want to be in a single provider relationship. And I think as a result of that, there will always be choice in the ecosystem. And I actually think it's good for customers and it's good for the companies to just stay competitive and stay moving. Craig Mclucky here, product manager at Google. Google and the enterprise is not new but you guys are putting the full force on. We see the progress. Congratulations. Thank you. I'll give you the final word to end the segment. Share the folks out there in a quick summary, short and sweet why you guys are here partnering with VMworld. So we're committed to bringing Google style cluster management and technology to the enterprise. We're partnering with VMware and a number of other high-end technology providers to make sure that the technology that's been pioneered in the Google data center is available to enterprises everywhere. This is the Cube, Dave. I love the conversations in the media. Everyone talks about wars, cloud wars. This is really more cloud paradise. You got Google, Amazon and VMware, all creating value. This is really the action. You call it a kind of- Bringing that knowledge to the enterprise. I guess it's a cold war but the benefits are significant. So congratulations. It's great to see you here in enterprise show like VMworld with VMworld, congratulations. Google in the enterprise, Kubernetes, open source. The consumerization, the open source of everything is all goodness here at VMworld. This is the Cube bringing you live right back after the short break. Thank you.


Authorities have released the name of a Brainerd woman who died in a two-vehicle crash on Business Highway 371 south of Brainerd last Friday afternoon. The state patrol says 62-year-old Linda Moralt died after the car she was driving collided with a semi-trailer near the intersection of Brent Drive. Road conditions were icy at the time. Moralt was wearing a seat belt and the car's airbag did deploy. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland news, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


How can you tell which direction these iron particles are pointing when you're in the field? Well, in the field right now there's no, in the field of archaeology, there's no way to measure these directions in the field. You have to take some of these samples and move and take them back to the lab. And since it's a direction that is most important here, you have to collect the samples for their transport back to the lab in an oriented fashion. And that's where the field technique of archaeomagnetism comes in. That's where the elaborate process of cutting out the pedestals and pouring the plaster, scraping them off, marking them, measuring them with a brunton compass, where all that comes in. It's simply an attempt to take a piece of this oriented material before it's had a chance to move its direction back to the lab in a controlled fashion. We want to control for both the horizontal direction and the vertical direction, so you level it. After the students get through collecting the samples in the field, they're oriented in these plaster cubes according to horizontal direction and vertical direction. If you'll hand me that. You can see inside here, this one wasn't quite filled, but this is a piece of the material that is encased in this plaster cube. And then ideally you would have one that didn't have any holes in it. And this is how the material is preserved. And this is what we'll do the measurement in the lab. All right. Now these markings, you have to have marked north on the cube. Is that right? Right. It doesn't matter. The convention we're using here is we just mark the corner from which the direction was taken. We measured from this corner to this corner. And in the field notes there will be recorded the magnetic direction of this side of the cube. And the other markings on the cube simply are identification to keep that cube from getting mixed up with other cubes. It wouldn't make a problem. We use a magnetic needle or magnetic compass to control for the horizontal direction. That is, we measure this side. But it's important to remember that we're also controlling for the dip of it. Depths of the magnetic field? No, no. The dip of the magnetic field. How not only has it changed in horizontal movement, it's also changed from what you can think of as vertical movement up and down. Most people don't realize that. But we have to control for that. We don't simply measure what the surface or the top is in terms of its dip. We level it. And you've seen out in the field putting on the cross test level and leveling the top of the mold. Now, the reason this is important is simply to know how this was oriented in the field. We know that every one of our cubes was perfectly level. It had no dip. So that any dip we measure in the sample itself comes from the ancient pole position, not from the fact that the cube was straight. What other methods do you have to date these materials? I'm primarily interested just in archaeomagnetism, but archaeologists have available to them a number of other techniques. In the Southwest, primarily dendrochronology, the accuracy of which you can't match. And also C14 dating, which is created almost in a revolution in the rest of North American archaeology, and its ability to provide temporal control. Then you have archaeomagnetism. I think right now that those would be the three major absolute dating techniques. What is dendrochronology? Yes. Dendrochronology is also termed tree ring dating. Simply counting the number of tree rings that you have on a roof beam in a preserved Pueblo, let's say, and matching those rings, the sequence of those rings, to a master chart that's been developed primarily through work in Tucson, Arizona at the laboratory of tree ring research. And you mentioned C14. What test is that? Radiocarbon dating or C14 dating is fairly complex, at least as complex as archaeomagnetism, but basically what you're counting or measuring is the rate of decay in radioactive carbon. And it occurs at a fairly constant rate. And so by measuring the stable to the unstable radiocarbon atoms present today, you can calculate back about how old something is. Let me ask you, must you always have a charge sample to perform any of these tests? You mean any of the other dating techniques? Yes. No, tree ring dating actually would be better with a log that hadn't been burned. You can do it with charred roof beams, but it's a little clearer if it hasn't been burned. With C14, of course, it carbonized material. That's all you need. Usually it doesn't preserve in archaeological sites, but when it's burned, it is preserved. And that's why you end up usually using some burned organic material. And of course you need a burning for archaeomagnetism, but you're not dating the material that was burned, the wood in the fires, you're simply dating the material that got cooked underneath it. And how old are these techniques? Are these techniques very old? Not too old by comparison to archaeological material. They are in a constant process of developing, but by and large we have all these techniques been developed in the last 50 years. Dendrochronology, I believe, was developing in the 20s and maybe 30s. C14 was developed in the 50s, and it's only been in the last 20 years that you had any work at all done with archaeomagnetism. And I feel like that there's a real opportunity here within the last two or three years for a tremendous increase in archaeomagnetic dating technique. Once we've collected these oriented samples in the field and we bring them back to the lab and measure them in a laboratory magnetized. Once we've collected samples in the field, oriented samples, we bring them back to the lab for measurement. And we measure them on these laboratory magnetomers that are a little different from the magnetomers that you were used in the field at the archaeological sites. Those magnetomers were for locating soil anomalies, particularly features that might be buried underneath the ground that would be of interest to the archaeologists. This magnetometer is much more sensitive and is used for directional information. It will help you determine not only the intensity or differences in intensity between samples, but also the direction that the samples are actually pointing. Yeah, go ahead. Alright, turn it on. Rolling. Alright, now we're going to change the cue orientation and remeasure it so that we can average out any sort of irregularities in the magnetism of the clay specimen. Archaeomagnetism illustrates something that's very common in archaeology, that is the, or in science generally, that is the cooperation between disciplines. Archaeomagnetism developed out of geophysics and it was applied in archaeology, but at the same time the geophysicists were dependent on archaeological dating control to establish the first master records of how the Earth's poles were moving. And this sort of cooperation continues today. Archaeomagnetism is a dating technique. It was originally developed in geology in a technique called paleomagnetism where they're interested in changes in the Earth's magnetic field. And there were very, very major changes, particularly reversals in the polarity of the Earth's field. The north pole was the south pole and the south pole was the north pole. These geophysicists who were interested in paleomagnetism became interested in archaeomagnetism, that is using archaeological material in studying these changes in the Earth's magnetic field. And this is where the word archaeomagnetism comes. It's an attempt to distinguish it from paleomagnetic work. Paleomagnetism deals with rock cores and going out and doing geology, basically. Archaeomagnetism goes out to an archaeological site, collects archaeological samples, burned hearths or floors, what have you. The technique for collecting is quite different. You've seen pictures of how that's done. In paleomagnetism they're essentially coring with a drill and taking the rock samples back to the lab. Well, what use is this to an archaeologist? Magnetism is of use, as any dating technique would be used. I think, and I have a little bit of a bias here because of my interest in dating, but the public's interest in archaeology is primarily one of how old something is. This is one of the primary pieces of information that the public has a right to expect from an archaeologist. Well, archaeomagnetism is just contributing to that body of information. How old sites are? When were people living? What were they doing? When? And how long did it take for certain changes to occur? And you can tell when the last fire was in a fire pit. That's the essential event that archaeomagnetism dates. Other techniques date other aspects of life at a site. But archaeomagnetism tends to date the last activity at a site, either the last burning of the room. If that coincides with when they left, it probably wasn't much use of the room after it was burned, but they could have left a long time before it was actually burned. Some vandals came back later and torched the place. And then you'd actually be dating the torching of the site. What archaeomagnetism dates is the last uses of sites, of activity areas, and that sort of thing. Well, I don't understand the theory behind it.  Well, there really are two things you have to understand in the technique of archaeomagnetic dating. One is the theory behind why there is changes in the Earth's magnetic field. And the other is why archaeological sites record this change. And I think it's best just to deal with one and then the other. The first problem of why there is change in the Earth's magnetic field is a problem that was the original reason for development of the technique. Geophysicists were interested in why the Earth's field changes. Why is there what they call secular variation? And it has to do with theories about the core, and they're still arguing about these theories. And so there isn't a real answer to that question, why the Earth's magnetic field changes. But what's important to archaeology is that it does. The problem for archaeology, given the fact that the Earth's magnetic field changes, is knowing when this field was at certain places when. That is, recording the actual movement. So geophysicists began to use archaeology, and they did it in the southwest where they had good dating control already with dendrochronology primarily, tree ring dating. They would go to a pueblo or a room that was dated by tree rings. They'd know fairly closely when the room was occupied. They would collect an archaeomagnetic sample out of a burned feature there and determine what direction it was. So they would have a direction pointing someplace on the globe, and if we could sort of try to imagine the northern hemisphere up here. And we're down here somewhere in the southwest part of the United States. You have a pueblo room that you know when it was built, and you've made an archaeomagnetic collection here. And it points to someplace on the globe, and you can date that fairly closely. It was 1,300 plus or minus 50 years. And then you go over here to another site in the southwest, and you notice that it's pointing over here. The collection is pointing there. And it dates, the room dates to 1,350 according to tree ring material. Then you have another site that dates 1,400 according to tree ring dating, and this is where the archaeomagnetic sample points to. So you can begin with hundreds of these points to construct a curve of how the Earth's magnetic field has changed, how the declination and inclination of the local field has changed. And as a matter of fact, this curve gets very, very complex, and it wanders around and wanders around and wanders around and crosses over itself a number of places. Why does it change? Well, again, this is the question that was of interest to the geologists, the geophysicists, and it involves the nature of the Earth's core. And as far as I understand it, there's no answer to that question. There's theories, and there's conflict there about deciding which one of these. And it's hopeful. Geophysicists are hopeful that the archaeological evidence provided by this secular variation curve will help them determine the nature of the Earth's core and the cause of magnetism and why does it change? Why is there change in the Earth's field? But right now, I don't think there's a real good, clear answer to that. Well, do you know how fast it moves? For instance, one degree every ten years, or what? That's precisely how fast it does move. On the average, one degree, the rate of movement is not constant through all this time period, as it turns out. Sometimes it's moving faster than other times. But on the average, given the entire time range, the Earth's field moves about one degree every ten years. So you can figure that in ten years, your compass will not be pointing quite to the same place. It'll be about a degree different than it is right now. Does that mean from the samples that they've gathered at the archaeological digs, you can tell within a ten-year period when they abandoned the site, for instance? Not precisely, because there is some inaccuracy in measuring this direction. If you knew precisely where the hearth was pointing, you're right. You would know something about probably a ten plus or minus ten-year act. But there's inaccuracy in dating the original curve, how the pole has moved, and there's inaccuracy in measuring the actual direction that the hearth is pointing. So all those inaccuracies combine, and in collecting the hearth, all these inaccuracies give you an archaeological date, which is generally accurate to about 30 years, plus or minus 30 years, which is not too shabby, given a lot of archaeological evidence. Let me get this straight. Why is it so important that a piece has to be charred or burned? This is one of the most important aspects of the archaeomagnetic technique. Exactly why you can measure this direction. Why in these sites there's a recorded ancient polar position? And the answer to this question involves the nature, the mineralogy of clay. And in clay, just ordinary clay that you'll find in almost any site, there will be very small microscopic iron particles. You can sort of imagine them being randomly placed in this clay. Just sort of any direction. Now, the interesting thing that happens is that when this clay is heated up to very high temperatures, about 600 degrees centigrade, in fact, it doesn't even have to get that hot, these iron particles, very, very small, begin to align with the current field. The current field begins to determine their alignment. They become very, very agitated in this hot state. And as it cools down, they are locked in certain positions. And those certain positions are the field at that time. And they remain in that alignment. So before heating you have it, random after heating you have it in this sort of parallel alignment. This is idealized. And they're all pointing north, for instance, or magnetic north? Magnetic north at that time. And it doesn't change. It's a very important feature. It's preserved. If it's reheated, say it was reheated 50 years later, everything would become re-aligned to the Earth's field at that time. But if it was never heated again, then that's the direction that you would get. You tend to get the last firing of a feature. If it's a fireheart, it'd be the last time it was used for cooking or heating or whatever. If it's the burning of a room, you would get the burning of that room, the direction of the magnetic field at the time that firing occurred. Now... Well, when they take it from the hearths and bring it to the lab, how can you tell which direction the sample was pointing? That's an important question because really what you're after is this direction. This is what you want to know. But right now there aren't any instruments. There's no technology for going out to the field and setting up a machine over the hearths and saying, Hocus Pocus, what direction are you going? Hi, Roland Barrett at the Morgan Ranch in Areola. This was settled way back in the early days by Mr. Morgan, Mr. H. Frank Morgan. And I know that Mr. Morgan is one of the first men that had the idea of promoting the Glorys River Project. In about the years of 1912 or 1914, he spent $3,000 of his own money just to find out where the water would go, just the high line. But he could get no support, so I know that from then on, every chance he had, he boosted for the project. But he couldn't afford to spend any more of his money and money was hard to get those days. The southwest corner of Mr. Morgan's land and he had the post office up there where those buildings are. But all this ground where these buildings are here was in orchard and is a beautiful orchard to find varieties and he hauled water from the Glorys River in barrels to set that orchard out when he came to this country. I made a living here for five years and then the man that owned the farm was superintendent of the sugar factory in Rocky Ford, his name was Noble, and he wanted to sell the farm and we couldn't get together. So I had a chance to get a farm over here across the draw and I moved over there and lived over there for five years. And while I lived here, the log cabin burned down and I built another house here. I'll show you how it's been moved. This man moved it when he built this fine house here. But I'll show you the house that I built and lived in while I lived on this farm. Did you make a... And that was here and I raised spuds but I had some experiences of spuds. That's when the war was going on and they said plant beans and spuds feed the soldiers. I planted beans in the orchard here and I plowed up some good pastures, raised spuds. The next year the war was over, I hauled the spuds out and...


Well, we came out here to Westport today for safety concerns that we have with the crabbing fishermen. What we're doing out here is a real quick safety check. All we're looking for is immersion suits, survival craft, and E-PIRB. And if they got those three things, then there's probably a pretty good chance that they'll survive most disasters that they could have out there. Skipper around? Do the skipper. All right. Come on board. Thank you. How are you guys going to start? Well, we actually have two of us. So one of us can go up and look at the E-PIRB and then life raft. For the E-PIRB, you know, they got to have the NOAA sticker. And what the NOAA sticker is is it tells, when the E-PIRB sends out a signal that the boat is in distress, it tells the NOAA, it tells NOAA that there's a boat out there and it tells them where to look for them and gives them all their contacts. So they need to have the right information with their NOAA sticker. Right battery. The battery date expires every 10 years. And so that's what else we're looking for on the E-PIRB. Right, yeah. Make sure it flashes, flash three times. So it's good. Place battery by January 2008. So we want to make sure this is still a lot. Make sure this is in 2008. So that's good as well. With the life raft, it has to be serviced once a year. It has to be in a float free location. So that it doesn't get caught if the boat does go down. It's able to float free and activate. We're just going to look at just the... Make sure it's on here to be able. Now it's going to be float free. Make sure the paint is attached to the weak link. Make sure the hydrostatic release looks good and it's in good condition. Check the expiration date here. So May 2008. Let's see first of all how many persons this is rated for. And it looks like it's six people. And with the immersion suits, we're making sure that they're in good condition. Most immersion suits out there are horrible. And if it's not at least five years new, you can probably bet it's in pretty bad shape. And what we're looking for on the immersion suits is that they have a light attached to their immersion suit. They have a whistle attached to their immersion suit. And the immersion suit is in overall good condition. That the zipper works, that everything that gave the immersion suit its Coast Guard approval is still on the immersion suit. And that's pretty much what we're looking for on these boats. I was going to tell people if you want to... Zip it all the way up to the... Yeah. Just this... That's a fresh zipper. I'm going to give you some new retro for this. We're going to check to take it out at 10 to 20 minutes if we're able to do them at the dock. And if they refuse them, they get boarded out at sea. It's about an hour and a half to two hours. Operation Safe Crab 2007 means that we're going to every single port on the coast that has a high contingency of crabbers. And we are doing our safety checks. You know, 10 minutes, those three things. They got those three things that can survive. You know, I'm confident that they'll be able to survive. That's the most important thing, saving the life.