Okay. During the past two centuries, social theorists have contributed to what has come to be called the secularization thesis. This thesis identifies three main trends. First of all, progress in science and technology tends to promote a disenchanted view of the world where an ever-increasing number of events can be causally explained without turning to theology or metaphysics. Second, as governing structures adapt to scientific advances, churches and other religious organizations tend to lose their control over law, politics, public welfare, education and science. And instead, they restrict themselves just to their pastoral functions of providing for the individual's spiritual well-being. And so religion becomes largely a private matter. The third thing is that increased prosperity brought on by industrialization and the rise of the welfare state tends to reduce the need for reliance on a higher power to cope with life's inherent risks. In my abstract, I claim that this hypothesis was showing signs of age. By this, I don't mean to imply that these trends have ceased altogether, but that there are significant discrepancies between the trends as described and what is actually happening. Sociologists and philosopher Jurgen Habermas explains that among the expert community of sociologists, the secularization thesis has been a subject of controversy for more than two decades, and that there is even talk of the end of secularization theory. He points out that while the data globally still provides surprisingly robust support for secularization, the weakness of the theory is due rather to rash inferences that betray an imprecise use of the concepts of secularization and modernization. He goes on to describe these discrepancies in more detail, and he calls this revised thesis post-secularization or post-secularism. He points out that the European model of secularization has actually been the exception rather than the rule. As a counter example, though religion is changing in the United States, it's still home to many vibrant religious communities, and its proportion of religiously committed and active citizens remains high. Despite its religiosity, America nevertheless is the spearhead of modernization. It used to be seen as an unusual holdout against the secularization trend, but wider perspectives on other cultures and world religion now see this as more of a norm. So although churches have lost control over their government functions, they continue to exert a powerful soft influence by encouraging their congregants to be politically active and by clear messaging on issues that are of importance to them. And from a global perspective, religion, especially fundamentalism, is actually increasing in the world. So while post-secular theorists have a lot more to say, for the purposes of my presentation today, I'd just like to highlight two important conclusions that I draw from post-secularization. First, religion has been misunderstood, and perhaps most importantly, religion is not going away anytime soon, so we'd better try to understand it. So let's see if we can try to understand it a little better today. What exactly is religion? It has been notoriously difficult to define. We could easily spend hours on this topic and still not get to the bottom of it. But in general, I take the position that religion has been characterized too narrowly. We think of religion as the church on the corner, as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism. But we forget that religion existed long before the popular denominations of today. In his crowning work, Religion in Human Evolution, sociologist Robert Bella describes religion as a system of symbols that when enacted by human beings, establishes powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations that make sense in terms of an idea of a general order of existence. You may notice that this description applies to a broad range of human activities, some of which may not traditionally be associated with religion. So hold that thought, because I'm going to get back to it later. Far from a peripheral aspect of human life, Bella draws on a wide array of biological, archaeological and anthropological research to show that religion was not just an important phase of our evolutionary development, but is actually one of the conserved core processes that contributes to our ongoing survival and is part of our very nature. He traces its emergence in our evolutionary predecessors and describes some of the necessary components that preceded it. So I had a ton of slides about some of his research, and I had to just cut them all out because we just don't have enough time today. You can make them available afterwards online? I guess I could do that. That would be great. Bella stresses that human culture develops incrementally. While it may advance to new phases, it always retains elements of the previous ones. He identifies three phases of cultural development. Mimetic, in which primitive humans communicate primarily by mimicking and gesture. Mythic, in which the development of language has enabled narrative. And theoretic, in which old narratives are questioned and reorganized, old rituals and myths are replaced with new ones, etc. But today I'd especially like to focus on myth or narrative. Myth literally means story, especially in the context of religion, stories about transcendent human experiences. Contrary to the popular understanding of the word, myths are not untrue. They may even be based on historical events. In fact, they often are. But their strength is not derived from their historicity. It comes from their being powerful, motivational narratives that will still be relevant long after the historical incidents that led to their emergence. Even myths that are obviously fables still contain overarching moral truths that help to order a people's worldview, at least for a time. And we can definitely see myths fading in and out and on the ascendant and waning as well. Myths are symbols that point us beyond our present everyday concerns to an overarching purpose. They bring meaning to our lives and as human beings we crave meaning. We want meaning so badly that we create it where it wasn't before. In fact, created meanings that are most compelling are the ones that tend to endure the longest. Which brings me to the last point that I'd like to make today. As we noted earlier, despite undergoing rapid change, religion today is alive and well and even shows up in some unexpected places. In fact, in many instances the secular narrative has taken on religious functions. Religion blogger Nathaniel Givens shares a few examples. One prominent and off-sided example of this is the secular religion of environmentalism. The degree to which the Green Movement recapitulates all the high notes of Christianity is so brazen that it is ripe for parody. We all existed in a state of natural bliss and union with nature until the serpent of modern technology entered and we partook of the forbidden fruit of industrialization. Thus causing us to be expelled from Eden and subjected to a barrage of artificial cancer inducing chemicals. Now all our children have autism from vaccines as the world labors under the weight of collective guilt. We are held sinners in the hands of an angry nature over the fire of catastrophe, of catastrophic global warming, where repentance, carbon offsets cannot purchase our freedom but is due nonetheless. It's basically Christianity without Christ. He hastens to add, please note that none of this discussion calls into question the science of anthropic global climate change. I'm merely pointing out that that issue has social weight not because of the science but because of the narrative. We are disaffected. As Louis C. K. puts it, everything is amazing, no one is happy. Something is missing and we need a narrative to plug the hole. Environmentalism fits the profile. Whether or not it is factually true is beside the point. This has been noted before but what has been missed is that this is not just a new veneer for Christianity. It's an example of the extent to which religion properly defined is deeply and completely compatible with scientific rhetoric. I should also add in case it's not obvious already that Givens is not trying to vindicate Christianity here. He's merely making a sociological observation. He goes on. Another stark example of this was evidence following the tragic Sandy Hook massacre. In the old days we would have turned to religion to assuage our grief and pain and give us some explanation. But in the 21st century newspapers made sure to cover extensively the fact that the killer's DNA would be studied. Scientifically this is meaningless. It's as relevant as reading entrails or casting bones. And that's precisely the point. Science is increasingly being cast to fill the role that religion once filled. Mary Midgley identifies two frequent pitfalls that many scientists fall into when discussing some of the potential implications of their discoveries. Cosmic optimism and cosmic pessimism. Robert Bella shares examples of both in his book which I mentioned earlier. As an example of cosmic optimism we have Eric Chesson's book Cosmic Evolution. Intelligent Life is an animated conduit through which the universe comes to know itself. Perhaps now is the time to widen the quest for understanding still further, to expand the intellectual effort beyond conventional science, to engage the larger non-scientific communities of philosophers, theologians, and others who often resonate with the cosmic evolutionary theme even if not in name, all in an ambitious attempt to construct a millennial world view of who we are, whence we came and how we fit into the cosmic scheme of things as wise ethical human beings. Humankind is entering an age of synthesis such as occurs only once in several generations. Perhaps only once every few centuries. The years ahead will surely be exciting, productive, perhaps even deeply significant. Largely because the scenario of cosmic evolution provides an opportunity to inquire systematically and synergistically into the nature of our existence, to mount a concerted effort to a modern universe history that people of all cultures can readily understand and adopt. As we begin the new millennium such a coherent story of our very being a powerful and true myth can act as an effective intellectual vehicle to invite all cultures to become participants not just spectators in the building of a whole new legacy. So Bella responds to this. Chason is in fact calling for a new church to go with his new religion. I have no problem with Chason's endeavor. Indeed, I have a lot of sympathy with it, but I would be happier if he had taken responsibility for what he is doing rather than implying that all this is still science even if quote beyond unconventional science. And he falls into one of the pitfalls of all religions when he speaks of the story he tells as a powerful and true myth with the implication that other myths are not true for truth is one of the marks that gives his religion its distinction. This leads perilously close to the implication that all the other religions are false. Then what happens to the vast majority of humanity that doesn't understand much less believe his myth? Chason would have avoided this error had he been clear about this myth is not science. Myth can be true but it is a different kind of truth from the truth of science and must be judged by different criteria and the myth he tells though it draws on science is not science and so cannot claim scientific truth. I would argue that the myths told by the ancient Israelite prophets by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle by Confucius and Mencius and by the Buddha just to stay within the purview of this book are all truth true myths he could have added other religions as well. They overlap with each other and with Chason's myth but even in their conflicts which are sometimes serious they are all worthy of belief and I find it possible to believe in all of them in rather deep but not exclusive ways. He then shares an example of cosmic pessimism. It is perfectly true that science attacks values not directly but it subverts them. If he accepts this message in its full significance man must at last wake out of his millenary dream and discover his total solitude, his fundamental isolation. He must realize that like a gypsy he lives on the boundary of an alien world, a world that is deaf to his music and as indifferent to his hopes as it is to his sufferings or his crimes. So Bella points out that actually that theory is a little bit outdated since morality itself has evolutionary origins but he still says although a distinguished scientist and one of the founders of molecular biology, Monod in the above passage, has entered the world of metaphysical speculation and perhaps not surprisingly finds there the thought of a leading French existentialist. As Mijuli says of him he has created a drama in which Sartrean man appears as the lonely hero challenging an alien and meaningless universe. Just want to share a few more examples. The cosmos is also within us. We're made of stars. We are a way of the cosmos to know itself. Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules are traced to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically enriched guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life so that we're all connected to each other biologically to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That's kind of cool. That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It's not that we are better than the universe. We're part of the universe. We're in the universe and the universe is in us. Don't get me wrong. I love these guys. I love these guys. In fact, I love watching these shows. Cosmos is one of my favorite shows. Okay, so don't get me wrong. Bella ends his critique of these excesses on ecumenical tone. He says, as I now move to trying to tell the modern scientific metanarrative and highly condensed form, let me just reaffirm my conviction that there is undoubted truth in all the reactions, including the rather different ones from these scientists, but also those from many other scientists and non-scientists to this extraordinary and disturbing metanarrative. I also believe that in spite of our differences, we do not need to fall into culture wars in which we denounce and anathematize those with whom we disagree. This is a big universe. There is room for all of us. At this point, I'd just like to paraphrase some of Nietzsche's remarks, which I find aft, although they were originally addressed to philosophers, not scientists, he said. That which causes scientists to be regarded half distrustingly and half mockingly is not the off-repeated discovery how innocent they are, how often and easily they make mistakes and lose their way, in short, how childish and childlike they are, but that there is not enough honest dealing with them, whereas they all raise a loud and virtuous outcry when the problem of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest manner. They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic, in contrast to all sorts of mystics who fairer and foolisher talk of inspiration, whereas in fact a prejudice proposition, idea, or suggestion, which is generally their heart's desire, abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders also of their prejudices, which they dub truths and very far from having the conscience, which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule. Of course this is an exaggeration, but the phenomenon occurs frequently enough to be a useful observation. The main point, be more aware of and open about your biases. Don't be sloppy about where science ends and religion begins. Call a spade a spade. Back to Bell's definition of religion. Religion is a symbol, system of symbols that when enacted by human beings establishes powerful pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations. And I just like to buttress this with the words of William James. He says, the capacity of the strenuous mood lies so deep down among our natural human possibilities that even if there were no metaphysical or traditional grounds for believing in a God, men would postulate one simply as a pretext for living hard and getting out of the game of existence its keenest possibilities of zest. Every sort of energy and endurance of courage and capacity for handling life's evils is set free in those who have religious faith. For this reason the strenuous type of character will on the battlefield of human history always out where the easygoing type and religion will drive irreligion to the wall. The definition of religion that I find most useful is whatever symbols, rituals, and narratives are capable of provoking a strenuous mood in a community that inspires it to work towards a desired future. It is a technology like any other but it comes from so far back in our evolutionary past that we're not used to thinking of it that way. It can be used for good or evil. Let's make sure we use it for good. Let's also try to be more aware of when we cross over into religious territory and do so in the right context and consciously instead of by mistake. That's all I have time for. I had one more slide but we'll skip it. Thank you guys.


So let's say for example, I actually want to Use some of these named cells say for example down here at discount area or discount amount I want to apply this only only if The user was early registered now Big fancy word there again, we've heard this before but if only if ooh scary Well, not necessarily the quick and easy way to kind of work on this is to head over to my insert function I can also go into my logical section and it'll be there But I can come in here and just look for my if if it's not there. I can simply search for it If and once I hit okay, I get first my logic test now like I said, I need to see if early registration Was a yes now one of the things that happened was sure I can again type be What is it eight? I can do be eight, you know, that's not gonna be the end of the world But because I've named early registration. I can click over here or I can type it in and Now instead I can just state early registration and what I want to see is does it equal? Yes, then it does. Okay. Awesome. Well, if it does value of true Value of true means I give them a five dollar discount. I give them a discount amount Luckily, we've named that as well and then if it's false, I can say zero and when I hit, okay what happens now is I get exactly that if Early registration was a yes, give them the discount. Otherwise, don't give them the discount and then here equals boom minus boom receipt fee minus receipt discount


a hot day in route on a convoy mission in Iraq. It's November, 2004, and Sergeant Lance Royce is in that vehicle. Went off about five to ten feet from the door. His Humvee was pelted with shrapnel. I was disoriented. I had trouble walking up first and everything. The truck and the crew made it back to Fallujah, and Sergeant Royce was immediately checked by medical staff. I was determined to have a moderate to severe concussion. After three days, I was released back to my unit and continued the fight. After two more months of fighting, Sergeant Royce returned home. I came back where I continued to try and work at my college, but I was having some struggles. I kept that to myself for the most part because I just thought there were migraines. I didn't think anything of it. In fact, Royce wasn't flagged until he was being screened for his next deployment. I went through and got a CAT scan MRI done.  Sergeant Royce started receiving treatment for his traumatic brain injury and also the OK to stay in the Army, which is good because... I had finished my college enough to drop my OCS packet, and that's why I got accepted to office of candidate school. He's now a captain and is receiving treatment for his wounds. I'm glad that the Army has finally recognized that it is a legitimate combat wound. And now the Army also recognizes it as meeting the requirements for being awarded the Purple Heart.  Army Sergeant Elliot Valdez, Graphic Bureau, Germany.


Live from the Mandelaic Convention Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, it's theCUBE at IBM Insight 2014. Here are your hosts, John Furrier and Dave Vellante. Okay, welcome back everyone. We are here live in Las Vegas for IBM Insight. This is theCUBE, our flagship program. When we go out to the events and extract the signal from the noise, we're really looking for really the positive, not the false positive, but the positive data points and predictions here at IBM Insight. Of course it's theCUBE. I'm John Furrier, my goes Dave Vellante, special guest, Jeff Jonas, fellow scientist and chief scientist, IBM fellow at IBM, CUBE alumni, I've been here many times. We always talk about some awesome stuff. Welcome back, Jeff. Great to see you. So what's going on? So Dave wanted to get on this Ironman thing. So let's give us the updates. So you've done some Ironmans. Last time you were on last year, you ripped out the costume. Are you ready? And you ran off to CUBE with the IBM where? Well let's set the table. So last time your objective was to run five in August.  Swim, bike and run, not just run. But yeah, full distance Ironman. You wanted to do five in one month. I tried to do five. If I was able to do five in that month, I would have become one of just a few to have done every Ironman in the world. But I got a chest infection for one of them and then I tried to do Ironman Sweden Saturday and Ironman Copenhagen Sunday and that didn't work out so well for me. Okay, so you made it halfway through Copenhagen. You got three in August, three and a half. The only count, we round down I guess. Okay, but you've reached a new milestone this year. In August, I did, when I finished Ironman Copenhagen the second time to finish, I became one of three to do them all in the world. Okay. And then, but to stay in that club, you have to do all the new ones. And they added four Ironman in two weeks. And each one- There's a club of two. Well, it was a club of three. There was a club of three. And then they added four new Ironmans and each one was a continent's change. Continent, continent, continent in 15 days. And in the middle of that, when we went in the middle of the weekend, you had to do, to stay in the club, you have to do Ironman, Mallorca, Spain, and Ireland and Spain Saturday. And then you have to do Ironman, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Sunday. And it just seemed impossible. And I kept looking at the website trying to figure out logistics and I really couldn't figure it out.  And one of the other three and I did it. So we did Ironman, Spain, Mallorca, Saturday and Ironman, Chattanooga, Sunday. So Mallorca is not easy to get to. I imagine it's a little, maybe easy to get out of, but still not easy to connect the Tennessee. So how did you pull that off? It was expensive. Yeah. It's called a G4. They just said they're waiting for us. Hey, the boys club of two, who spends a lot of dough. So you guys have some. And you slept on the way over? I got a two and a half hours of sleep is my estimate. And then you, you know, literally we walked our bikes on the plane. No box. I'm just, you come off the one race course. And G4, you don't have to check luggage, just carry it on. You just walk your bike on the plane. We get off the other end, driver waiting for us, take us to the race start, check a bike and sort out your bags. You got to get all your stuff together and sort it into bags for your transition areas. And by the time I get to the race start, within 20 minutes, the next gun goes off and I'm doing another Ironman. You're in the water. Yeah. It didn't kill me. Well, I'm still in the club. I'm still in the club. You're in the club. It's a club of two. It's two people in there, one dropped out because they didn't do the new Ironman. That's, that's the kind of thing. We're going to afford the flight. You become a friend and we're going to put them on the flight with us for free. We're going to, but you have to finish that first race in time to get to the plane, to make the trip. And his time would have been a little longer. He's got some steel in him.  So he wouldn't have made the flight. He got dropped. Literally. But next year, next year he'll be back in the club. He's, this guy's done 170 or 180 Ironmans. He's got the world record. That third guy. So he's back. He'll be back in the club next year. Yeah.  Anyway. No, no, no. This guy's a legend. I'm like the new cover. Congratulations guys. So what are you working on now? So last year we talked about, about a lot of the big data stuff, but what's new with you? What are you working on? I saw some tweets earlier about asteroid predictions. Just share with us. One of you, what's the geospatial stuff? Share with the folks that context. Well, part of my main, main thing is this, this project I've been codenamed G2. And sometimes I refer to it as sense making. Cause that's what the goal is, is how fast can you make sense of all this data across the enterprise? And then can you make a really high quality decision in 200 milliseconds while it's still happening? That's the purpose of this thing. Well, one of the kinds of data that you want to be able to incorporate is geospatial data, which I'm obsessed with. But to do really high speed geospatial work, I had to craft something else called a spacetime box, which figures out where things are in space and time. And no matter where you are in this box, you get credit for being in the box. But when you do that, you can take really big problems that are geospatial and reduce them and do really, when I go explain to people what I've done with in the astronomy field, astronomers look at me and go, wow, you must have just invented some new kind of math. And I go, no, I explain how you stay spacetime boxes. And they're just like, no. And the thing we've done recently is there's 600,000 known asteroids. None of them hit Earth. But it turns out now and then they hit each other. So I ask astronomers, I go, well, why don't you just compute that when they hit each other? And they go, no, that's multi-body orbit math. It's a 600,000 factorial problem, 20 million hours of compute. And I go, but yeah, but with spacetime boxes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And they go, no. Ha! Ha! You're mind-blowing. Oh my God. It's so simple. It's embarrassing, really. So in less than 3,000 years. He's a mother-wife who solves the problem. We'll, goodwill hunting kind of scene. I almost want to tell you how it worked. I will in a second. But listen, we took a 20 million computer hour problem to less than 3,000 hours and we did it the wasteful way. And we've created a forecast for the next 25 years of how every asteroid interacts with every asteroid close enough to be interesting to astronomers. And we're going to produce a paper on this so astronomers know where to look when so they can see, you know, when they're either going to hit each other. This is important, by the way, because if an asteroid is going not where you thought and it's coming towards Earth, I mean Earth is where we keep our stuff. So this is important. When they hit each other, doesn't it change the whole equation? Yeah, right, but they don't, there's no forecast to say they might hit each other. So where you thought it was going, it's not going there because it found a neighbor. So you got to figure out the collisions first and then redo the math. Yeah, but I'll take me two minutes to explain how I did it. You want to hear? It's kind of funny, really, because it's so simple, everyone can get it. What we did is you go to asteroid number one and you say, we're going to be tomorrow at noon. And there's some math that astronomers use and we use that. And that math comes back and goes, this asteroid is going to be right here, exactly here. And what we do is go, well, that's pretty exact, but what zip code is that? You know, it's a big space time box. Nobody has the same asteroid, where are you going to be the next date? And it goes, oh, right, here. And we're like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. What is zip code is that? So we just ask every asteroid where they're going to be once a day for 25 years. And then we just take all that exactness and put them in zip codes. Well, it turns out on average, I think it's only 2,000 a day, end up in the same zip. So now you have a much smaller number. So then you go back to the two asteroids and you go, hey, we're going to be at 1 a.m., 2 a.m., 3 a.m. and it goes, oh, here, here, here. And what we do is, yeah, yeah, yeah. But what street is that? It's just a smaller space time box. By the time you do this, the number of asteroids that are in the same street on the same hour is so small.   We just figure out if you're not on the same street in the same day, no reason to call the big math. It's so simple. It is embarrassing. So that's the prediction. So what do they say, like, thanks for embarrassing me? Oh, they loved it. Come on. No, I spent five hours with some astronomers and I asked them a thousand questions.  And at the end I said, well, the way I would use my information theory in a G2 kind of world, this is how I'd apply it to your domain. And they said, you've just named five things we haven't heard that we think would, we haven't heard in our field that we think would move the needle. And one of them was this ability to do really high-speed co-location analysis. So you could use your expensive algorithms narrowly. And I went, we went after that and did it and it's been validated. You know, we can show them, these two asteroids are close on this day and they go and look at their own numbers, do it the way they do it. And they go, you're right. So when do we dinosaurs get wiped out? Actually, here's what I really think everyone needs to know. If the team and I that worked on this save earth, you're all going to owe us. You don't have to pay taxes. That's that movie, yeah. So basically what you've done is you've made better predictions because you say, okay, we only care about the ones that are in the same zip code, therefore, are they in the same street? So you don't apply it into heavy lifting unless you know how near they are. Yeah, in hindsight, this is a whole class of things about trying to better focus finite resources. And in this case, the resource is an expensive algorithm. So it's a finite resource. So when you do context computing and we get enough data together and one aspect of that is generalizing things into space time boxes to find out things that are near each other, you can use the expensive resources more narrowly. So talk about what else you're working on. You mentioned money laundering, false positive engine, back to this better decision, because that's what everyone wants. This is the human aspect of the cognitive is getting more outcome actionable, using resources properly. And whether it's putting a good sales guy in front of the right lead at the right time or right computation around the right data set, whatever that is. So talk about some of the projects you worked on that kind of bring us to light. The one I've been spending the most time on has been helping banks deal with the large number of false positives that they're getting from their anti-money laundering engines. And I want to tell you how this looks to me through my lens, okay? Here's how it looks. They have these engines and they feed them all the bank transactions and these engines pop out leads. So these engines go, hey, oh, I've got a lead. And an analyst goes, yay, yay, a lead. They run off, they work on it for an hour and they go, that's no lead. And they put it in a pile. You need a ladder, okay? And they put it in and that's not a lead pile. And then the machine goes, it's okay, I've got a lead.  I mean, they're just like, ah, no. So the thing is just spitting out false leads. That's why it's like a false positive engine. I mean, you can look at it close enough, you're like, what is that doing? Sounds like social sales, Dave. It's a false positive engine. You need to just use random. So what I'm using G2 for, when it's not working on asteroids, or by the way, what's neat about G2 is you can do them both at the same time. Oh, yeah. But here's what you do is you tell G2 everything you tell that engine and then you take all the leads that come out and you just put a splitter on it and tell G2 that. And then you take the cases that they've worked in the past and what the outcomes were. It's like another color puzzle piece. And you add that. So with that much richness, a more complete picture, as it makes new cases. So the engine goes, here's what I think and what we're doing with G2, like a corrective lens, is we're going, well, yeah, we see what you think. But did you know in that case, there's three transactions, you just saw three months ago, an antelossom and didn't escalate them. Why would you spend more time on those? So like we're annotating it. And then we're taking a transaction that's so far down at smaller that they would have missed and said the counterparty, they're so damn interesting because they were escalated in the past, you should look at them. So what it's doing is it's really reducing the number of the amount of time it takes per case, but it's increasing the quality of work at the same time. So they're getting lower false positive, lower false negatives. It makes a really big difference. So is the crappy lead generator retired or is it an input? Well, at the moment, you know, they trust, it's love hate, but it's what we know. And we just finished installing it. So it's like, it's shiny still. Yeah, so it's. It hasn't paid back yet. The payback hasn't hit. The pile's not big enough. You know, the thing is it's easiest to go to an organization and say, look, where have you been making your investments? Where's your momentum? And saying, we want to contribute to your momentum. So if they go, look, we just implemented this shiny thing and just generating these leads and it's, they're a bit heavy, you know, too many. Then we just go, okay, we're going to snap it on like a helmet. We just going to, you know, we'll just listen to it. And by the way, you already trust it. You already know what it is doing. And now we're going to tell you kind of what we think. So you can compare the two minute by minute, day by day. So it makes it, it's pretty safe. Low, it creates low risk. So anyway. All right, so what else? What about, we talked about money laundering. That's money laundering. That's the purpose of that. Catch bad guys. That's one of my favorite things to do. You know, bad guys. Astros are like bad guys. They don't have any privacy. Any of them could be evil. Really evil. So I got to ask you about the good guys and bad guys. Want to have a theatrical pause for a moment? Just take it all in. Yeah. Boy, that's great. Box continuum has got my mind blown. I really lost every question I possibly had. And then a street. And I'm like, God, I can't stop thinking about the little seized up motors. Oh my God, you froze the cube. He froze the cube. But what about? That's a first. Three-boot. John and Dave were speechless. It's never happened before. It has never happened. Statistically unproven. Before. 6,000 interviews. One is 6,000. It's a skew data point. Okay, so let's get back to the space, time continuum. So how does the G2 asteroid fit in with the money laundering? Is there a correlation with the tech? Or is it similar? I mean, is there a similar crossover?  IBM kind of liked one of my inventions. They buy my company 10 years ago. And that technology is called Identity Insight today. And it's the industrial strength thing that fuses data together. And then six years ago, they said, if you had a big idea, we'd fund it. And it was at that moment when I dreamt up G2, I'm like, knowing what I knew now, if I could only invent one more thing in my life, what would I spend the rest of my time working on? And one of the unique properties of G2, whether it's, last year I talked about modernizing voter registration in America, where 25% of the country is now on this. It is, I am so proud of what this is doing for democracy and access to the roles and cleaning up the election rolls. But imagine that, and then tomorrow, everyone's going to hear about what Singapore's doing with G2 to help protect them a lot of straights. With half the world's oil supply, 30% of the world's commodities, and how they're using space-time boxes to help them focus their finite resources, to anti-money laundering, to asteroids. What's unique about G2 is you could feed it all of that data at the same time. And in one engine, with the same configuration about how it's assembling its view of the puzzle, is the same. It's so different. I'm just saying, I don't know of anything else. When I meet people at a customer or a bank and they go, we have about 2,000 people, we're just going to build it. And then I go, well, I'll do all those things, it'll do it all at the same time with the same configuration.  The conversation kind of goes to a lull. It's not like somebody goes to the board and goes, well, let me show you how we'll do it around here and build it ourselves, because it's hard to fathom. So last year, you said down the cube, I wrote this down if I wasn't expecting your interview, it'd be as awesome as last year. Customers, well, if it's the customers now, some organizations feel they have to build systems based on their data. I put this word, data space, existing data. And the problem with that, you said, was it widens the data space or observation space. If new data sets then come in, then it increases them to, pressures them to re-engineer their organization or infrastructure. So this notion of, okay, observation space, cool.  Now we got to re-engineer. Yeah, so where are we with that? Oh yeah, so, and that's actually one of the points about if you started the system in voter registration, which has nothing to do with vessels, and then you went to anti-money laundering, which has nothing to do with vessels. And then you said we want to help the Singaporeans do maritime. You can add new kinds, new sources of data, new kinds of entities and new kinds of features. Like vessels have call signs, ship names, they have lengths, drafts, how deep they are. You can describe those things to G2 while the plane is in the air and start feeding that data to it and it'll start fusing it with the other data that it has. Now I don't know why voting asteroids and vessels would have anything to do with each other, but I came up with one example. If you discovered that an asteroid was going to land in a certain place in the ocean and you could predict the ship was going to be there and you knew who was going to be on the ship and you knew they were a voter in the US, you would predict they're not going to make the election. And so you have to null that vote. Voter fraud, solve. You might want to mail in your vote, have them vote before they take the trip, right? Okay, so let me talk about another observation space. Dave and I, which relate to our media business, we have our observation space is the audience out there. And now they're all connected with social devices. So the observation space is the social data. So that's a hot topic right now. And now with social web, the active data is not clickstream. It's really a different kind of organism if you will. It's O-authent, it's identity based. So you have real people connected with the web using social data and exhaust the stream or whatever you want to call it, connected. So that's social data. So how do you see that? If you have an observation space called the social sphere, a lot of people are trying to figure out how to take G2 like concepts, apply a crowd chat and figure this stuff out. Yeah, to me it's just another color puzzle piece. It's like the human is the sensor, right? The human is producing sensor data. So when people are, as everyone's talking more and more about the internet of things, it's just like it turns out the human with some instrumentation is just one of the nodes in the internet of things. Thing one and thing two. I read that book to my kids. So that's your point. So they're throwing off data. And one of the things about, I mentioned yesterday about the internet of things is going to continue to add more and more data and just babble and babble. So one of the, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, chatter, chatter, you know. Chatter, chatter. The thing is, is you don't know if something's relevant or not. If I were just to give you a random puzzle piece, your ability to know whether it was random or not is exceptionally difficult unless it has a picture of the gun and the baby on it, okay? All the evidence on one observation. So what you have to do, and the essence of context computing is taking these stuff that's hashing happening out in the social ether as puzzle pieces and to evaluate its importance and to who. You're taking it like with the features off of that or what was expressed, whether it's a Twitter handle and where they were when, and you're saying what else is happening there then? What else have they done? Do they have very? It's very around them, it's a space problem. That's right, and that's, by the way, that's the definition of context is better understanding something by taking into account the things around it.  Now you're taking, and geospatial data is super sexy, I think, to analytics, and now when you see something happening somewhere, you can say what else is happening there now, and you're going to use that to tell you whether that thing is important or not. It's not about staring at the transaction. It's where it fits in the stuff around it. Hence my obsession with context computing. I think the geospatial thing really puts that puzzle piece into a three-dimensional puzzle because now, if I say, hey, having a great time at IBM Insight, man, I can really use a beer. Okay, beer, insight, I'm here, one puzzle piece, me, and what's going on, I'm in the lounge here, maybe someone brings me a beer. Better yet, a great use. It's our cell. It's your limit to how much data. How'd you know my favorite drink? Is that you can watch in the observation space?  That's funny. It's your limit to how much data you can ingest. You know, I think about, they can't fly, the height of the disk had any lower, Moore's law, we can't make the microprocessor go, it's your limit to how much data you can ingest. You see a lot of data. Well, here's the thing, is you'll want to be able to absorb and remember as much as you can, and then there's a point where, computationally or storage, you're unable to, you have to let it fall on the ground. Now, I'm going to give you this in a biology example. There's a lot of background noise going on way out there right now, and people listening right now might have a hum of an air conditioner in their office. They weren't hearing it. It was in their observation space. They could have been collecting and processing it, but they're not. And what's happened is, over time, they've assembled enough context of the world to be able to blank that out. And that's an example of you're taking a perception and a sensor, a sensory perception, and you're dropping it to the floor and not doing any compute over it. And the more that we are able to bring data together from diverse sources and get a picture of the world, the better of ability we'll be able to have computers to do the same thing, figure out what to drop to the floor. Versus if we heard a bang right now that was real loud, we would become selectively curious. We would actually want to go get more information about it. That's one of my future features of G2 is called selective curiosity. More later. Show a little leg. Come on. Selective curiosity. Okay, I'll tell you briefly, selective curiosity. There's a lot of maybes in data. I mean, the more data you have, there's a lot of maybes. So imagine that you get a maybe like, they might be roommates. Now your first question would be, should you spend a lot of energy figuring that out? So what you're going to do is say, would anybody care? Maybe you would say, give them a $100 ad or send the army. So in these cases where you find a maybe and you'd say, but if it was true, would anybody care? And the answer is yes. One of the things I've got coming in my G2 roadmap is G2 becomes selectively curious. And that means it figures out what it wishes it knew. And then it goes out and Googles it, it goes out and maybe asks a data service or maybe it asks a Jeopardy champion. Whoa. Can we do about a boom? All right, stage exit. We're going to hope you now, let's go. I wonder why you said that. Okay, Jeff, we got a role. We're getting the hook sign here. Always great to have you on. Give you the final prediction. What's going to happen next? The world is going to continue to become a safer place. You're going to continue to live older, longer and happier than any time in the history of mankind, despite what we see on the news. Awesome, we're here and helping get rid of all these viruses, Ebola, all this other end security. Like the positives, like the positives. Do you want to, West Africa, stay away, you know. Okay, we're here in South Cape with Jeff Jones. Always entertaining, but really super amazing in terms of what he's working on in the G2. And we had this chat three years ago. Amazing conference, all becoming reality. Exciting to chat with you again.  I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. We'll be right back after this short break.