I'm Cliff Lynch, the director of CNI, and let me welcome you to our fall 2011 member meeting. I'm delighted that so many of you are here. We've been blessed with pretty good weather. I'm not aware of any major weather hang-ups going on around the country right now. I am, of course, concerned that we are building up a karmic debt and, you know, thinking about record snow in April or something for our spring meeting in Baltimore, but anyway, we'll take it while we can get it. I have a number of logistical things I just want to touch on before getting to my main remarks, and for reasons I'll get into in a minute, we have a little less time than usual, so I want to kind of move things along. So I would like to welcome you all here. I think that you're going to find this to be quite a memorable day and a half. I'd like to especially welcome a number of international members and guests that we have joining us. It is not always easy to do those international trips, and I am grateful that they could make the effort to be here with us. We have a number of new members or rejoining members that I would like to take a minute to recognize. These include Lafayette College, the University of Wyoming, the California Polytech, Wichita State University, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, the University of San Diego, Coopley Library, and Wake Forest University, and I welcome those institutions. I had an opportunity to meet reps from at least some of them at the new members session earlier today and it's great that they are here with us. This has been, there are a couple of things that have been changing that I just want to make a quick note of. Over the course of the summer, we did a major rebuild of the CNI website. Many of the sort of visual characteristics are maintained from the old one, but I think you will find that the new one is a great deal cleaner, more convenient to use, and much more effectively navigated. As part of that, we also cleaned up a number of other things. You will note that this fall, we finally took our fax machines out to pasture and went to an email-based registration system. There were actually some reasons why we kept the fax machines as long as we did, not that we liked fax machines, but anyway, that's all over. Similarly, I will not make mention of evaluation forms in your packet because there aren't any. You will get one of those in email in due course after the meeting. There have been a number of these kinds of small things that we've had an opportunity final. Well, actually some of them, like the website, were not so small, but some of these important maintenance things that we have gotten done. Despite the favorable weather, I want to just make mention of the message board by registration. If there are changes in the breakouts for some reason, we will post any changes there so that you know. There is also information on wireless connectivity if you need it at the registration desk. There's a winch page handout available. The last thing I just want to mention in terms of housekeeping is that we've changed the format of the meeting a little bit. This fall, we got probably 50% more proposals for sessions than we've ever gotten before, plus there were a number that we wanted to invite because they dealt with things that we wanted to get on people's radar screen because we thought were important. There was just no way we could fit them in the number of breakout session slots available. We debated what to do about this for a while. We considered having several series of breakouts starting at like 6 tomorrow morning. That was probably not optimal. What we ended up doing is tightening up some of the breaks this afternoon, notably the very long break that usually follows this session, and slotting a third round of parallel sessions in. We'll still start the reception at about 6 o'clock. The end of the day stays the same, but what you'll have is three rounds of breakout sessions with somewhat shorter breaks between them rather than two rounds of breakout sessions and really long breaks. One of the upshots of that is that I really do need to be finished here at 2.15 promptly. I do want to allow time for questions, so I'm going to try and limit all of my remarks to about 40 minutes here, so this should be good. What I want to do in these remaining 38 minutes or whatever I have is really to give you a bit of kind of the year in review and look at some of the major trends that we're tracking and to talk a little bit about how those connect up with our program and our program plan. You'll find our 2011-12 program plan in the white packet that you received at registration. It is also, as of this morning up on our website, and I'll just note that if you would like additional copies of the glossy printed version to share with colleagues at your institution, just let me or Joan know and we can get some for you. I know that some of our members have found that to be a useful internal communications tool. That's what I want to do in the next little bit. I sort of struggled with the place to start. There are these fascinating macro trends that are going on right now. This whole sort of debate about how much higher education should tilt towards the vocational issues around the legitimacy of various areas of study, particularly when they are subsidized by public investment. The whole question of how you demonstrate and quantify economic impact, job creation, all of this stuff is swirling around at a macro level and framing a lot of things that we have on our plate. I don't really want to spend a lot of time on that other than to note that I think there really are some very serious conversations going on that will shape the broad future of the higher education systems, especially in this country.  I think that while they will not be unaffected that they will have more flexibility I think to choose how to respond to this than some other parts of the system. I think the place where I have concluded that I want to start in terms of things that are really directly on CNI's agenda is to sort of note that this has been the year when big data became fashionable. How many times have you heard about big data in the last six months? It's on the cover of things like the Economist, you have the New York Times running pieces on big data. This is really an idea that I think has started to capture the public mind in very interesting ways. It's certainly an issue that we here have been out in front of for a number of years, but it's one that's taken on greatly enlarged dimensions and that you can actually talk with people about now outside of our profession. I think that there are two lessons kind of in the year of big data that we want to be mindful of. One is that not all the data we care about is big data. It's wonderful to have these sort of conversations about how my exabytes are bigger than your exabytes. I think that when we really go out and look at what's happening in the world of data intensive scholarship, data intensive scholarship is not the same as big data intensive scholarship. Big data intensive scholarship is a rather narrow slice. So much of the information that needs organized and cared for really fits pretty comfortably on smallish disks and lives in tools like Excel spreadsheets. And I think we need to kind of remember that that data is really in many ways the most intellectually challenging because it is so diffused throughout the system of scholarship. And because in many cases the investment sort of per data set is substantially smaller. I mean, if you're signing checks for a large Hadron collider, you know, you're going to ask where the data is going. Now we've gotten to the point where if we're giving out grants, we ask where the data is going in terms of the NSF data management mandate, for instance. But really we're going to be moving on into scales even smaller than that, I think. So that's one thing I think we need to keep in mind. The other thing I think we need to keep in mind is that coded into this kind of big data rhetoric is a lot more than data intensive scholarship. There's a whole agenda of machine learning and prediction and classification that is implicit in a lot of this discussion of big data. In other words, you can make scholarly discoveries certainly through machine learning and classification and finding correlations and relationships, but you can do lots of other things. You can run societies, you can predict, you can sell stuff, you can sort people in different ways. And I think that one of the things we're seeing and one of the reasons there's so much interest in this suddenly beyond the scholarly world is that people are recognizing that this is a very, very powerful set of technologies and tools for a whole variety of commercial and governmental agendas as well as simply scholarly ones. We've even seen that in the emphasis in our own institutions now on analytics, classroom click streams, predicting students at risk. All of a sudden, we're moving from scholarly use of very large data to very operational kinds of things, and these come with their own very real issues I think about privacy and about what uses are and are not appropriate. We had the National Science Foundation mandate go into effect in January. So the campuses represented here, at least from the U.S., have now had just about a year of experience dealing with this. We're still trying to understand a lot of things. We're trying to understand exactly how review panels treat these. We're trying to understand what guidance to give to faculty who are preparing them. One of the things that has been notable in the sort of collective response to these mandates is efforts not just to develop sort of general best practice, but actually to develop tools that can be customized for different funding agencies and for different campus environments that actually will assist faculty in developing these plans, and I think that's a very high leverage kind of activity. I want to note in this connection also that there are two calls which I have shared out to the CNI Announce List from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. One call deals with public access to journal articles describing research that has been publicly funded, the NIH mandate and where that should be headed and whether it should apply to other fields. The second, which is the one I want to really bring to everybody's attention here, is a call for public input on data sets that are produced as part of publicly funded research and what policies should accompany those data sets, how they might best be preserved, whether disciplinary or institutional strategies should come into play here, the role of government, and interestingly some questions that I think are exceedingly difficult to answer that deal with the economic impact of access to this data. Does this help to grow businesses to create jobs? The cutoff date for comments on that is early January. As I say, you can find links in the CNI Announce Archives or a number of other places, but I'd urge you to think about whether your institution or you as an individual, it's open to individuals and institutions, want to express a view on this. I think that in this room, certainly and in the institutions represented in this room, we have an unbelievable depth of knowledge and insight about these issues and they are indeed important ones. I also want to note in this connection a couple other things that are going on in the big data world. There, a couple of years ago, the National Academies established a board on research data and information. It goes by the acronym BIRDI. That was initially chaired by Michael Esk of Rutgers. He has rotated off and I've agreed to co-chair this board for the next couple of years with Fran Berman who is the former director of the San Diego Supercomputer Center and is now the vice president of research at RPI. I think this is another opportunity to look broadly at policy ramifications of a lot of the big data movement, a lot of the issues that we're familiar here with dealing with data curation and data reuse and I would urge you to look forward to that group also helping us to connect up with other policymaking and scientific and scholarly communities to help understand this. There's some other real interesting stuff happening and I don't have time to go into huge detail in this but I think we'd be remiss not to note it. We had a plenary here not long ago from Liz Lyon from UKOLN where among other things she highlighted some of the developments that she had been tracking in what's often called citizen science or public engagement in science. I think actually Bill Mitchiner tomorrow in his closing plenary will probably touch on some of that as well. It's very interesting to see how this is gaining momentum. There's clearly a movement here with some significant force behind it and I think it's one we need to track very carefully because it promises a kind of a broader reconnection between academic research in many areas and the broader population in the U.S. You might recall, for example, a system called Galaxy Zoo which I think Liz had a slide of or you may have seen at some other meetings. This is basically a system that teaches people to classify galaxies and then they are shown galaxies and classify them appropriately. So this was such a success that the people who did this have gotten a bunch of funding to build a whole series of other games basically taking their experience in packaging up this kind of citizen engagement and applying it to a range of other fields. Fascinating development. The other one which really has gotten my attention is the whole set of issues around genomics and especially personal genomics. The cheap sequencer has become, you know, the CIO's latest nightmare joining things like backhoes and other things and haunting their dreams. These things, it's getting really cheap to sequence genomes and these things pump out horrendous amounts of information like around 30 terabytes per genome before it's matched up and paired and reassembled when you get all through. You only have a few gig out the other end but the kind of raw data that needs to get fed from the sequencers to the computational apparatus is tremendous. And if you look at the curves here they are much worse than the worst law curves. We are developing the ability to sequence much faster than to compute and reassemble the sequences which is an interesting development. Now what's happened is that there is a whole set of genomically based medicine which basically to a first approximation says what you want to do is get sequences for individuals and we can't quite afford to do this yet at scale but it's clearly coming within the next few years. So you want to get sequences for people including all the variations in that sequence that make them individuals and then you want to get medical records. And then what you want to do is do the most amazing calculations you can imagine over you know entire populations of genomes and medical records and try and figure out what patterns of variation correlate to what conditions and what treatments are effective given various kinds of conditions and genomic variation. These are computations on a scale that are just mind boggling and as you get into complex things where it's not just one variation basically causing a disease but maybe 50 variations causing a statistical predisposition to one. You need the resolving power of enormous numbers of observations to do this. So we're starting to have a series of policy conversations bubble up about who owns your medical records, who owns your genome, is it reasonable to link them and how anonymous can that be if you want to provide these huge sets for data mining. And the answers here are needless to say quite complicated but also are they look like they're going to be a gating factor on biomedical discovery in the next couple of decades. I was in the U.K. last week and while I was there the prime minister basically made an announcement that it was his intention to see that all the medical records in the national health service remember they have a national health service. We just have enormous hospital complexes so you have to deal with several of these. But basically everybody was going to be a research subject unless they opted out. All these records would be available for computational mining and that's a wonderful thing and it's also kind of a disturbing thing. You may have noticed that right now you can get yourself genotyped for a couple hundred bucks from 23andMe or a number of other companies and there are people who are taking the position now. I'll put my genome up. Some of them will say sure I'll put my medical records up too. Most of them right now are probably the genomes enough. I can readily see that there's going to be a very interesting set of conversations showing up here that bring together policies around data mining, around privacy, around data curation that are going to have some fairly high stakes for the research enterprise. I just ask you a couple of questions. If you were going to put your medical records on deposit and side question, who owns medical records for dead people? You can compute on these just as well after people are dead. It's still good data. Where would you feel good storing them? Would you feel better storing them with your insurance company or your local library? Just something to think about. I will leave that there other than to say I think that there's a lot of interesting issues that are going to show up. Big data is rippling in a lot of other directions too. For all the progress we've made in high performance networking, data seems to be growing way faster than the networks. You're seeing a lot of investment in trying to think about how to move data from place to place. You're certainly seeing conversations also though about data that's too big to move. Once it gets there, it has to stay there because there's no way we can move it other than maybe ship a lot of tapes on an airplane or something. Even the time to write the tapes is intractable in some cases. This is very interesting and it connects up quite directly to some of this talk about clouds and cloud services. When you start talking about clouds for very high end data, it matters which cloud you're in. You don't move from one supplier's cloud to another casually. The bandwidth constraints and the time it takes to replicate data is such that there is some significant lock in to be dealt with if you're thinking about clouds as a potential solution here. We see this propagate in lots of other directions too. Just to name one, access management. We've taken the first steps around access management with federated identity management. When you start thinking about custody of complex research data across time, you actually wind up with a nasty mixture of individual and role-based access rights that cross institutions that need to be preserved here. We know very, very little about this at this point. We don't even, I think, have particularly clear statements of the problems, but I think we'll see work showing up in that area as well. Here's another sort of large-scale development that I'm seeing, and I'm seeing it with some momentum in it, connects up just like big data to a range of agenda items for the coalition. This is what I would call the new scholarly communication movement. There have been a whole series of meetings and workshops over the past year, year and a half, a sort of a motley self-declared crew of technologists, scientists, publishing people who have started to come together and really talk about how we take the next steps in changing the scholarly communication system, except that the frame of the conversation is quite different. This isn't primarily an economic conversation. The agenda here is not open access, although I would say many people come to these discussions with a strong bias that says that ultimately a system that is open access-based, however it's funded, is liable to occur for other reasons, but instead what these folks are interested in, I would say, is really sort of a tripartite agenda. One part is sorting through the relationships between scientific publications, and I would say these folks are mostly focused on the sciences, not the humanities. They're interested in the connection between scientific publications and the underlying data, how those should be related, the tools that would be used, the citation or pointer mechanisms that should be used, all of that. Tools are a very real issue because you do want to be able to do at least some simple things that are sort of like computations localized in the paper, like graphs of a data set. You really want that to just sort of be automatic in there, but also manipulable. So the question is, how do you get from here to there? The second piece of the agenda is really about formats and, again, about tools. It doesn't have a clean break line with the questions about data, but it's about how you write papers that don't simply emulate the papers of the 1920s and 1930s, how you write papers that are enriched by being read in a computationally mediated way, and papers that understand that they have readers that are human and readers that aren't human, but are computational. Then the third piece of this agenda is a set of issues about what I loosely call peer review and impact, and another way to think about them is helping people to allocate attention. And helping people to understand the impact and reach of their work. So this includes thinking about various kinds of measures of impact, but one particularly salient kind of idea that seems to be emerging is the notion of people taking some responsibility for their own kind of scholarly identity, which includes their bibliography, probably some brute facts about their biography, and connects all of these up. And it's quite striking to look at developments across Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Research, Elsevier Systems, Web of Science, all of these are starting now to give you tools to clean up your bibliography, to disambiguate and authors or identify authors that shouldn't be separate. Unfortunately, right now, they don't propagate changes from one to the other, and we're still lacking some vital pieces of infrastructure here, author IDs for one, and there are a couple of interesting initiatives in that area, most notably ORCID, which are looking to plug some of that gap. But I think that we're starting to see the emergence of a whole set of tools that sort of support this idea of public records of publication and the ability of individuals to take control of those records, and C&I has been quite active in some of those conversations of late. I want to simply note the discussion about outsourcing clouds, scale cross-institutional activities, web scale discovery. There's a whole array of conversations there that clearly have gained a lot of momentum. I think that right now there is at least as much talk as real action there. I think that there are some formidable challenges in the area of understanding risk and understanding lock-in in these settings. I think that we're going to come to realize that selecting and joining clouds is going to have more to do with selecting and hosting communities than we might have realized in the past. Some of that is going to be driven by the realities of bandwidth. Some of it is going to be driven by the enormous diversity of kinds of service that the different clouds are offering. They're not really very substitutable right now. I do want to move on though because there are just so many areas that I want to comment on. The whole notion of digitizing collections and making them available as a basis for a conversation with an audience or a community is one that we've come across numerous times over the last five years or so. The placement of photographic collections on Flickr, these kinds of things, Flickr Commons. It's striking to me how much traction this has gained. There's a recent OCLC study that Karen Smith-Yoshimura and Cindy Shine from Getty put out that does something like 75 case studies of institutions who are using these kinds of tactics of user-enriched collections. I think that my sense, unscientifically is that this is gaining more traction in the museum world than the library special collections world or others, but I think that this is a model that we really need to continue to investigate and exploit and that has some very natural connections back there into public science and into sort of humanities versions of public science, public humanities if you want. Another thing that's crossed some sort of inflection point this last year, I think, has been e-books in popular publishing, if you'll allow me, the mainstream commercial publishing. I don't know what the best thing is to call it, but it's very clear now that the level of commerce in e-books is such that it's starting to restructure a good deal of the economics of publishing. Panic is setting in in various quarters. Folks with some long-standing ambitions are actually having opportunities to see those realized for better or worse. Right now, most of the action and anguish as it affects the cultural memory organization world is limited to public libraries. Public libraries are just having a horrible, horrible time with e-books because the publishers are basically declining to do business with them at all or declining to do business on terms that remotely resemble the historic economics of public libraries acquiring material. This is a real serious problem for public libraries and it's one that's very hard to know what to do about, particularly short of some sort of reinterpretation of copyright law or something. And it's one that I mentioned here in part because I don't think this is going to be limited to public libraries. I think that we are seeing the beginnings of a very nasty mess in mainstream commercial publishing, which includes a tremendous amount of material that's essential to the cultural and scholarly record going forward. These are things that end up in our research libraries as well as our public libraries. And there are things that we're not going to need, we're not going to need just today, but we're going to need two generations from now to understand a lot of what's going on in our culture. When was the last time you saw a coherent discussion of how we are going to preserve mainline commercial e-books? I don't even see those words mentioned in the debate about, you know, about squeezing public libraries out of the e-book market. And yet, that's a debate we have a very high stake, I think, collectively in dealing with. There are other places that we better watch out for too. The used book world is going to go away as another byproduct of this. And that has implications that I think are very substantial for the long-term access to the cultural record. The last kind of event I'll point to in that world is all of a sudden pieces of the market are falling out of the control of the major publishing players, too. You are seeing a tremendous number of do-it-yourself authors, many more than we used to see, and with a much greater reach. We're also seeing successful authors, on the other hand, withdrawing out of the publishing system in some cases. What the implication of this is that it gets harder and harder to track down and identify the scope of these kinds of materials. You know, once upon a time we had tools that helped us with this, that I think are getting very, very shaky at this point. There's more to say about this, but I think the place where I'd leave this is that it behooves all of us to pay attention to what's going on in this area and to recognize that this is not an issue that is going to be limited to public libraries, although it may start there. In terms of preservation kind of issues, there's again a tremendous amount we could talk about. I just want to note two things. The use of social media of various kinds continues to go through the ceiling. People are spending an incredible amount of time on these systems and communicating through these systems. With the exception of Twitter, as far as I know, we have almost no meaningful strategies for preserving any of these, and we don't seem to be making much progress in this area. This is a problem that is getting bigger and bigger, and I think is one that really should be worrying all of us. I also just want to note an event that I thought was quite striking and that snuck by with less discussion than I would have thought. Apple earlier this year, with their transition to OS 10.7, without really making any real announcement of it, pulled the plug on basically all software for their machines that hadn't been updated in recent years, all of the PowerPC based and earlier programs. A remarkably large collection of work. This was one of the most striking examples of deliberate obsolescence on a very large scale that I can think of. What was so amazing about it to me was that they didn't say anything about it in advance, they just sort of did it. People didn't really talk about it that much except for a few people who were tracking what's going on. I think that the scale of this really invites us to ask some serious questions about policies about planned obsolescence and commitments to availability for the operating systems we use. It's getting to be too large a scale issue to ignore. Another way of thinking about what they did is that they just handed us a phenomenally sizable digital preservation problem. All these things used to work just fine. It actually wouldn't have been that expensive to keep them working, but instead we did a very big move all at once into the, this is now preservation material. The scale of this is probably something that would benefit from some study. Just to swing into the last set of comments I want to make from there, I think it particularly bears some study as we look at what's going on in the mobile environment. Mobile applications are very hot. Certainly we've seen a phenomenally rapid uptake in tablets based on Apple's iPad technology. We've seen a very, very fast uptake on smartphones. What we've got here though is many of the worst characteristics of the PC wars from the 80s reasserting themselves with apps that aren't portable, poorly specified things, proprietary things, walled gardens. Yet you see some things that really give me a lot of pause. A very popular activity right now seems to be to take content and package it in an app so that it looks really good on something like an iPad. On the one hand, this is a wonderful browsing experience. On the other hand, you've now tied that content potentially. You've tethered that to a set of assumptions about platform, about stability of platform, about software obsolescence in ways that we spent 20 years learning not to do by developing content standards that are very separate from software standards, things like XML and HTML. I think that it's really worth thinking hard about some of our content strategies as they apply in the mobile environment, particularly for those of us who are concerned about the longevity of content and to recognize that on the flip side we are going to be faced with, I fear, a whole new and difficult set of preservation challenges that arise out of this mobile environment. This is a set of trends that, again, we're going to be continuing to track closely. We did an executive round table about a year ago looking at strategies for campus approaches to mobile technology. It's very clear that institutions are really looking at what is struggling with this question about how far to go down the app pathway and how much to insist on treating these more like little computers and saying use a browser, use content independent, use content standards that are independent of platform. I think given the potential impact of mobility, this is actually a pretty significant crossroads we're coming up to. So these are a few of the big trends that I've been watching over the last year. There are plenty more we could talk about, but these are probably, I think, among the most important. And I think you can see how every one of these ties quite specifically into agendas that CNI has been pursuing over the last few years and will be continuing to pursue into this program year. I would hope that many of the aspects of these trends that I described aren't surprises to you. These are actually things that we've been talking about collectively and thinking about for some years now. And that while they are developments that are gaining momentum and gaining impact, they are not developments that are blindsiding us. And I hope that we at CNI can continue to help to ensure that as we try and understand and shape these developments together, we are not blindsided. Perhaps to use another metaphor that I just loved, we can offer you surfboards for riding the wave of data as a recent report from the Knowledge Exchange suggests of their program to deal with data curation challenges. I'm delighted you can join us for this meeting and I can assure you that for everything I've touched on, you will find lots more detail and lots more insight among the sessions scheduled for the next day and a half. And I've actually managed to finish with time for a couple of questions. Thank you. And there's a mic there or if people want a shout, I can repeat for the recording. The question is whether I could talk a little more about why this new world of mobile apps, why I believe that's going to lead to more preservation problems. I think, I guess to me, it feels like we are recapitulating a lot of the late 80s and early 90s here with an enormous number of applications that are specialized in many cases to more platforms than the market is going to be able to support. I mean, it's very hard for me to believe that we're going to see more than two, maybe three mobile platforms. So what you're going to see, I think over the next five to ten years as things straighten out, I'm actually thinking it's going to be more five than ten because the rate of change just seems to be so fast in this area is you're going to see a lot of orphaned content that got wrapped up inside of applications that want to run on hardware and operating system platforms that just don't exist anymore and that nobody's thought to preserve the content in portable forms so that we're going to wind up with a delightful array of emulators for proprietary mobile phone platforms and things of this nature. That's a lot of what I worry about. Some of this content will be significant. A lot of it, frankly, will be repurposed and it doesn't matter very much. If you read the newspaper on here, it's probably just a reformatted newspaper that's stuffed inside an app and there's a big database somewhere that's the definitive newspaper and the only part you care about is a little metadata that says, and these were the three articles they pumped out as the top of the news last Thursday onto the handheld, but you're going to see a lot of other creative content that will be built natively here and not replicated elsewhere. I fear the note. If you said earlier today that the circulation of ebooks by public libraries opposing a particular challenge, what kind of a model do you think would be sustainable in the circulation of ebooks amongst public libraries? Well, I mean, sustainable is an interesting word there because the question is sustainable for who? I mean, you know, frankly, it's not clear to me why following a model very much like what you're doing in print isn't sustainable, where you actually get a copy for about the same price you get on the standard consumer market, you'll loan it out to one patron at a time and, you know, you can keep owning it pretty much forever. That kind of revenue stream was pretty sustainable for printed works. I think there's actually more profit overall in the scheme for electronic works, and it feels to me like some variation on that ought to be sustainable. I know that one of the major publishers proposed a model where basically they attempted to emulate wear and tear and have the book self-destruct after. What was it, 22 or 26 circulations or something? And that just seems so intrinsically barbarous to have a book self-destruct. I mean, it's just, you know, I just can't see it. You know, maybe going to something that slows the rate of circulation or something, you know, that says that you only get to circulate it every five days or something during the first year you have it so that you have to buy a few more copies of something that's in high demand. You know, I think there's some room to move there if you had to. But I think models that include self-destruction just really bother me. And models that meter are, you know, that provide a disincentive to the library for doing more circulation are really problematic. If you had to put a little friction in the system, I'd think of it in terms of rate of circulation or something like that. I do think there are a lot of other interesting developments floating around there like, given that almost nobody can make a living being an author anymore, and many people are doing it sort of for ancillary reasons, some of them just for the love of it, this begs some real interesting questions about perspective, direct relationships between authors and libraries that I'll be very curious to watch in coming years, too. And I should also say, you know, that the kind of baseline thing I just talked about as a potentially sustainable model, at least to my naive eyes, there's no reason why you can't fancy it up a little to take advantage of situations where libraries want to channel a little more money into meeting demand spikes. For example, as I understand it, it's quite common now, if you get a very popular novel or something, to have a public library buy a number of copies of it, and then in a year or whenever the interest in it dies down, they'll keep one and the other four go out and the friends of the library sale, you could easily emulate those kinds of things in a pricing model if you wanted. I think I have time for one, maybe two more questions depending on how long they are. Do I have any takers? No. Okay. Well, in that case, grab a quick refreshment and remember, this is a short break at this meeting. On to the next session. Thank you.


Hi guys, hope we're all doing well. Happy Sunday. Hope you've all had a good week as well Sorry for missing out last week, but we're back and it's have a quick look over some of the charts how we're set up going into What is expected to be a pretty important week? I'm sure by now you've watched and or read Anthony's macro menu Certainly some interesting days ahead most notably Thursday with some key earnings After the close on Wall Street as well. So, yeah, I've just seen some tweets suggesting the The move could be expected to be in the region a sort of 3.9% Either way, which would be Pretty pretty big to be fair. So we'll have a look over Equity shortly. Let's get started and have a look over at the euro Which has has obviously been hugely benefited from this this week of dollar, you know Are we looking at euro strength for a week of dollar? I would suggest it's more on the dollar side of things But yeah, you can see here This is this is the levels that you'll see on this chart will be drawn on from two Sundays ago So, you know, I like to on the Sunday just have a quick look over see how my levels reacted and whatnot But here we were sort of looking Officially, you know two weeks back, but you can see that this trend line got the break of the retest and what an opportunity Around that sort of 16th 17th of July then strong resistance on the the 10th of March and we find some Resistance just before we get to that ninth. It's mash is through and even going through some of the the next levels We had marked up going here to 31st of Jan. We're now and this has removed everything. We're now at And we finished on the high of the week which was key because I've seen to the traders about you know on Friday If we sort of reject this whole area, I think there's another high I want to get involved just about here on that 16th of October, you know, if we rejected this area then Yeah, maybe people that believe that could be a short Coming in soon would slightly get more excited But yeah, we finished right at the top there above this high That we had marked up from January last year and now it's almost at October 2018 levels. That's a big zone and I think you know a lot of people would welcome a bit of a pullback To be completely honest where with that pullback in my opinion be worthy I Think if we can sort of use this as a guide I mean you've obviously these highs here which we can mark up for sure But I think towards that 115-114 you'd still be relatively happy to to go long around there and I mean ultimately there's been some great opportunities along the way for pullbacks to get in We've had you know and here on the futures one two three four five six days in a row to the upside Similar to what we saw here at the back end of May and it might be that we come into a bit of a Consolidation and we have to come back Around this area does that happen next week? Probably not but something worth keeping a watch on that's for sure now above these levels 117 and beyond you're really looking at highs from you know September 18 And this looks like a good enough point where you could find some sort of resistance before 118 comes in And if we just go back to that 118 area, and this is 118 yeah around here I mean look at this for a level really strong resistance again before it breaks to support We then break through and we haven't come back again since I don't think it's out the question we get 118 But that should be inferior for me be quite a nice ceiling Yeah, I all of these areas of pullback will be worth keeping a watch on and the bears haven't had a Decent decent go with it trying to break any areas of support You can see even going back here when they do take a bit of control just comes into another area to buy so yeah A lot of now resistance and support below where we're trading the bears really need a new fundamental driver for this dollar to Strengthen I would say in an ideal world We come back to this kind of point 115's 114's without any new Developments and that could be an opportunity to load up The longs again, I would say but yeah, it's it's sort of done well to get through this whole level this weekly trend line So as well keep a watch on that should we should we come back in let's have a look at that weekly chart? You can see what a week it was but we're now coming into a key resistance zone Are we starting to see a possibility for the tops? Biggest move and you are looking then towards here and we haven't had a close on the week above there since May 2018 and you can see that would be a level where if you do think the dollar is going to strengthen again And we're up there It's that the chance that people would want We'll we'll obviously find out shortly, but yeah some pretty key levels there for the euro To have a little focus on the pound finished bang pretty much bang on the high that we had in the 10th of June I'm just gonna remove everything for me and I've said this for the lunchtime videos that you guys have seen on on that fly live and You know to our traders in house It's a buy as long as we're above this level and the 200-day moving average You can of course make money selling this market intraday But look at this one to retest of this zone where the buyers does take control and Now we're at a point like without euro where we're hitting some key resistance So it might be that people get a bit excited, but I'd happily not be selling even if we do come down I'd say you're you're better off Looking for a cleaner trade anyway Underneath this level and that's when you can get a relatively quick move down, you know here 150 pips You know obviously if it was to go there, but I think it would relatively cleanly So we're quick looking see if we can start talking about some sort trend lines in the mix Yeah, I mean sort of match up in there perhaps, but yeah now. Yeah, so that's the key key level That's the next one above where we're trading Well, you've got to be careful here because you do have a couple points obviously that 12 on March high is just a bit above It's also a low from here if we make this chart a bit Bit thinner you can see the significance of this market around this zone So yeah 128 51 could be a bit of a ceiling couldn't it you can see just the importance again of this point You know, you've got support resistance support. Yes, a bit choppy support resistance. So above there You know next thing, you know, I 130 Relatively quickly and then even could we be talking about getting back to 130 twos again If the dollar is weak and we have risk on that's gonna help this currency push higher and Obviously with a dollar weakness, then you know, I don't think that is that the question But let's just mark up a couple of areas of potential horizontal resistance that we could see Getting on that 200-day moving average as well for the pound is gonna be important as with a few of these currencies and certainly the equity market And as that the 21-day moving average is worth having a look at as well here But you can see the significance once we broke through that and it's still acting in support along with this area Let's call it 126 70 not to be too specific But yeah, that's how I how I see the pound if we do come back below our and I'll shade this in For me, it's still the key most key level for the pound if we do come back below here You know, just be aware of these previous highs as areas where you could potentially de-risk But I'd say you're likely to get a move down towards 125s as well So the euro you can see Can you get a lot of key resistance points ahead? But the pound also bang on that and I'd say the pound has been the easiest to trade and Over the last few weeks. It's had nice moves I haven't really been consolidating in in horrible ranges like that euro was for a bit Whereas the pound has been moving quite nicely, but are we gonna see a A move lower this week a bit of risk-on could have could help that but I mean just having a look at the weekly you can see the importance of this level Risk reward short from there. It's not bad. Is it it's not bad Any of those currencies it seems anyway, but trade what you see not what you think On the Aussie you can see I had a bit of a trend line on those lows and I remember saying I can't really Justify the short unless we get below some of these levels previous high by the looks of it here on the 10th of June. Yes on Friday. Yes, thank Friday Actors great support So let's have a So a little look at this now as well Certainly to the downside. We know we now know this is key along with these previous highs. I Would say looking at this the short again similar to That that pound that you probably only want to get involved if we can Get below this area here because these pullbacks are still working in terms of horizontal resistance above where we're trading let's have a quick look and Well, I mean it almost almost got to the levels we saw from Fed and April last year That's going to be key that is going to be key I remember speaking as well to guys last week just about this zone here in that if we can close back below there You might start to see some selling come in Friday moved us lower along with actually you can see here really from Wednesday Thursday Friday, we were just drifting lower, but the ball stepped in on Friday and You can see we finished above that level, but if we can get below there I actually don't mind the short too much to be completely honest I think De-risking down towards these points here and here for a medium-term position could be could be good Overall on the weekly. Let's have a quick look Yeah, again if we can come up to that point It looks strong resistance doesn't it you can see as well just on these areas here has been well respected So yeah 72 maybe it's a ceiling for now But that said above there, then you know you again have got decent sized moves that could happen for this market also worth noting it is the on Yeah, Friday is the last day of the month so dollar buying into the month Maybe we're having a little think about that As well, but for the Aussie at the moment, I'd say the buyer's room control unless we get below 70 The pound below 2674 and the euro Below 115 that's not to say you can't look for shorts up at these highs on a sort of a range You know trade up here to you know get it down But I'd say the buyers will still be looking to come in and take control even if we do push a bit lower Now on to two equities. I'll start with a Nasdaq Okay that Yeah, so like I said, I haven't touched these For two weeks. You can see we hit the bottom of that trend line we hit the previous all-time high on 23rd of June and Solid support now is that this the opportunity people have been waiting for to get in again You know if we have a look at percentage of the the all-time high the double top all-time higher. Yeah, it went It went 6.8 percent down, you know with the Nasdaq is that actually good enough for a dick We've got something incredibly important earnings coming out though So just bear that in mind along with the end of the month trading Let's get the 21 day moving average on as well and you can see we finish below there now. That's not the most It's not the bill and end or it's not like okay. I'm selling at the open because you can see a couple of times We have finished below their clothes below So it's not big enough clothes and also you would say you would wanted it below that That high that we had previously on the 23rd of June So to this has removed these arrows so to the upside you know where I Would say don't feel comfortable buying at these levels So we can get back above what was the low that we had in the 22nd of June and also the 15th high I Know it's a fair whack away, but that's where I would say okay. The bears aren't interested anymore We're currently just a bit below this area support as well. So look at that on the 60 Which probably gonna get a bit messy now, but you can see here. This is that first area We want to see The balls get above I would say that's safer. However, if we do, you know get some good Good good sort of buying pressure on the open, you know above of these areas here from the 14th 16 17th you may well see a Decent move to sort of feel this area. So yeah for the NASDAF at the moment It's not for me a sale yet Because we haven't closed below the trend line. We haven't closed below the previous all-time higher and the 21 day moving average Not significant enough just yet for a for a close there if we do drip down just be aware You know, I wouldn't say it's out the question then to be honest that 10,000 comes in again Or this low from the 29th of June, but that would be key a break of this trend channel would certainly be key So yeah eyes on eyes on s&p 500 I mean this hasn't been altered for two weeks. I mean looking at that has much really happened You know, I would I actually I took a trade on this previous high and I de-risked a tiny bit on the day and I I actually thought you know what we that could be the loaner and we push on Wasn't to be the case and The remainder of that trailer was break-even stopped out. But you know, it's not the end of the world, of course but we're coming into an area now where It is key, you know, and it's like if the NASDAF gets below that area that we talked about here No, let's just get a little circle on there. Just because that is massively important isn't it if we can get back below 33183 in the s&p these these previous lows in the mix here where we get higher Probably that virus news vaccine news then I would say that's pretty important and You know, we could we could start to drift down. This is do this fresh To the upside obviously we're gonna have to hire last week But it's a zone it really is a zone and the gap feel that could can come with that If we get above there, it's all-time highs and we're not far away, you know at yesterday's last week's hire I should say we're only Three three point five percent away from the all-time high incredible But yeah, the important support points that I've been looking at is this 31 Hundred as well down here, you know for me the s&p is I Don't think we get here again anytime soon, but these would be that the support points of interest that I think Are the key lines in the sand? To focus on and then obviously this whole resistant zone to the up and you know, that's what that's how I would have that on It hasn't been moving massively. I have to say it has been, you know, chilling out a bit 21 day relatively Well-respected recently that could come into play as well for now It's not panic stations for me to sell but Twitter at the moment feels as if it's going that way. I have to say starting just to feel a bit bit on edge about things, but it's a big week and As well and I have to say did anyone watch the the the Trump and Portnoy Is that is so important? I want to get that wrong because it was fantastic. It really was Great if you haven't seen it, you know go and watch it whatever your view on on Donald Trump Yeah, Dave Portnoy Whatever your view on Donald Trump It was as fascinating just listening to it and and how he sort of opened up and was saying how he regrets Some of his tweets all the time he thinks oh, why did I say that and he was saying the retweets He sends sometimes get the ones that get him in trouble. So it's it was quite quite an interesting interview So give that give that a watch, but yeah The what I got from that was was you know, Trump Is his baby this stock market and you know, I think there's still upside left to come for sure down Jones Not enabled. Okay. Well, I need to I need to refresh my computer to get that working again But for the gold you can see we pushed on we broke our resistance We came back to find support on that level bit of resistance or my other area got marked up here before we smashed through and 1919 point eight seems touching distance away. Doesn't it? Why have I got that marked up? Well, that's the high on futures, isn't it all-time high from the 12th of September 2011 You imagine that comes now, you know, you'd be surprised if it doesn't if you're long you're de-risking Just a bit before they're a course taking a bit of your trade off But yeah, strong move strong move for gold Daily, where's your pullback point if you don't want to throw me along it Maybe even depth back down towards here, unfortunately, I mean you could obviously Yeah, there's fair whack away, isn't it fair whack away? It's going bit vertical now where it can be a bit tricky to get on these loose ends But you know, if you're not in and I take take Take your time. There's other markets, isn't it? Yeah, it's it's a buyers market at the moment But you know the lesson being, you know, as long as we stay above here, I'd be comfortable It's still being long or looking for longs oil It did get that that fill the kind of clothes above we retest it find support Not I don't know looking at that you're happy to be to be bullish this market still I would say and you know what was quite interesting was that the sort of You know these new trend lines that are appearing and we haven't had a significant close below So yeah, it's a key line in the sand, isn't it? I think if you're you don't want to be long all your way over the weekend as we know from this year but see how it unfolds this week or this this evening and Upon the futures open the market open because I don't think it's a bad long here as long as we stay above the trend line below there I think you can get you can start to get a move back down towards 30 39 bucks and then 37 for sure We hold then you've got the highest from from last week and and then this area Where we're talking 43 44 45 bucks as well.  It went that high. Wow. How's that? Wow? Wow? Wow? And this is a weekly chart what's a week for silver Yeah, I mean it struggled in it, you know, you can see we're sort of saying and remember being you still happy to be long above this area Don't quite know why I've highlighted that point Really Can't remember what's the video about the air this area you can see once we go above that and the and the high from the ear It's it let off in it and it really did push and push and push. I mean You can imagine people start thinking about this area coming into play around 26 dollars To be honest and obviously it has a little week like it did last week. You get that and I'm not gonna jump in and say, you know, it comes crashing down here But you'd expect you'd expect a bit of a move So to control the speed of this the the margin has increased as well and you'll remember 2011 it was 2011 wasn't it for gold and they increased the margin and that actually I believe marked the top Pretty much when they increased the the margin was it 2011 it was isn't it? Someone in the comments has confirmed that I mean I'll check in a moment But it was this is where the gold margins were increased and you can see we came lower for so for silver It wasn't meaningful. It wasn't massively that the margins the whole of contract were increased But you know when that happens it might lead to a bit of a move down So just bear that in mind just bear that in mind the decks Yeah, I mean again, it would be I didn't get long the decks But I'd have been happy to to here thinking, you know, yes You would have de wrist at this moment here and to be fair, you know When it doesn't close above their three days in a row you you start moving your stops to Sort of scratch and it comes back there now and to be honest it did find support on those lows So again how it finished on on the week Yeah, you're not it's not panic stations. Yeah, it's not It's set up quite nicely. It's just refreshed this because Technically this market is actually I think behaved quite nicely So you'd have these lows in here from the 15th of July marks up a good area of support That doesn't hold then you're looking towards the low the third of July We haven't had a close below there and then really I would say you're sort of looking to these Areas here as well. So some nice support points to come in If if we are to move lower Trendline break. It's steep. It's on the day. It's key, but Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if that's enough to make me want to sell just yeah I'm happy to be wrong on that course, but And then to the upside the highs that we had no close above there will be key obviously then the High of last week gap fill and then Simple, you know, those be the levels I have on trade what you see not what you think Looking at the 60 minute obviously the the trend line break was was well respected enough You know if we can get back above the trend line and these lows then yeah fine Maybe that's where you would want to get long rather than down here But yeah some some key points some key points in there. Anyway guys, we'll wrap it there Hope you all enjoyed that and any questions get them in the comments below But I look forward to doing this again next week, and I hope you'll have a great week


Welcome back to Tennis Talk, my name's Cam Williams and the entry list for the Australian Open for both the men and the women's tournament next year Has been released. There are some big names that are missing from this tournament, but there are also some big names that are in this tournament Maybe that means that they're playing. Let's go check out the big names that are actually playing and not playing So some of the big names that are actually missing from the entry list and won't be playing next year's Australian Open, Roger Federer Of course, he's not playing. He said that he won't be playing for a long time yet. Stan Vavrenka He's also coming back from injury. Bianca Andrescu has also pulled out of the tournament recently and Serena Williams She actually pulled out of the tournament today So four big names and Grand Slam champions who will not be making the trip down to Melbourne Well, let's go over look at the players that are actually playing the tournament or at least have submitted their names into playing the tournament Ash Barty the world number one. It's great to see her She's gonna be playing. Nami Osaka also confirmed to play which is good because we haven't seen her for a long long time So she looks to make her return in Melbourne and on the men's side the big one Novak Djokovic Confirmed that he is entering the tournament now That doesn't necessarily mean that he's gonna be playing the tournament because he can withdraw at the last minute and Rafa Nadal He is also committing to the Australian Open He's not playing the ATB Cup, but it's good to see that he's playing the Australian Open There you have it some big names missing from the tournament But some big names that are on the entry list and as I said before just because Djokovic is in the entry list That doesn't mean he's actually gonna play it just means that he's put his name into the Entry list which is just kind of like a confirmation of who's interested in playing the tournament He could definitely pull out last minute We'll probably find out over the next couple of weeks whether he will be playing or not playing when let me know down the Comments below. Do you think Djokovic is going to play the Australian Open? Do you think this entry list? Confirmation is actually going to be what he actually does and comes to Australia plays the entry cup plays the Australian Open We haven't heard from Djokovic. I'm waiting for Djokovic to say that he is actually playing until I hear him say the words I don't know. I'm still skeptical. Let me know down in the comments below though Do you think Djokovic is playing in Melbourne? So the entry list is out with some big names not playing the world number one for both the men and the women They've confirmed that they're on the entry list


Hi everyone, how are you? Do you like the movies? Can I hear it? Yes. So it's great to be here from the motion picture business to talk about the Academy Software Foundation and we're the new kid in the in the world of the Linux Foundation of all the different projects that are out there. We just got created three weeks ago. We announced here at SIGGRAPH in this convention center three weeks ago and we're in the process of setting this up. What I want to do in the next ten minutes is to give you kind of an overview of where we came from which is a story that you'll be very familiar with I think from the other industries but there's a bit of a flavor that is specific to to us to the motion picture business and go a little bit quickly into where we're at in setting this up and the the specifics of how we're setting up the foundation. So but first I want to talk about the movies generally. So what you have on screen right now is the top 20 movies of all time by box office revenue. The motion picture business in theatrical box office makes about $40 billion a year worldwide. These are just for the tickets that you buy when you go to the movies here in China and anywhere on earth. The motion pictures generate a lot of revenues in other in other ways from video streaming, team park toys and all kind of things. This is just a tip of a pyramid but what's interesting to note when you look at this list of movies is that they are all either visual effects movies or animation movies and they are all essentially by and large computer generated and done with software with artists using software and you have to go down the list to number 138 most profitable movies of all time to get to a pure live action movie. The movie is Mamma Mia. It did the $650 million but all the movies that are up there before then have been done essentially with software computer graphics software and the engineers that work on that use open source. They've been using open source as the other industries have and it's become an important part of movie production since the beginning. There's a list of all the libraries that are used for open source and these are some of them. They probably never heard about them but they're very instrumental in the making of the movies. Asis and then big open color IO opening XR. Two years ago as Jim alluded to we started an investigation at the academy. Rob Brido from Lucasfilm had this understanding that perhaps the academy could do something to help the open source community and so the investigation went on for two years. There was a lot of the CTOs and the director of technologies that are involved in movie making in animation studios and VFX studios visual effects that got together around the same table started discussing about software and how we can improve the development of open source. At the beginning we really thought that well you know open source is what it is. It's kind of a grass root motivated and there's not much we can do to help that. But as we proceeded at some point we invited Jim and Mike Dolan from the Linux Foundation to come and the first witness what we were doing and very quickly they said gently they said well maybe there are ways that we can help with this and they started telling us how we could fix some of these problems that you see on screen right now. So the Academy Software Foundation was created it's a collaboration between the Linux Foundation and the Academy. The goal is to provide a neutral forum for open source software in the motion picture business and also the brother media industries and for that platform to allow for collaboration on the creation of images for visual effects animation and sound. We have members this project this foundation is set up like many of the other Linux Foundation projects. These are founding members so you recognize the names there while Disney studio in particular is where Pixar is and Lucasfilm is and Disney animation is. You have a blue sky which is part of Fox Studios. You have VFX Vanders. Dreamworks is part of NBC Universal. You have Weta Digital, a visual effects vendor who's famous for the Planet of the Apes movies. You have Animal Logic in Australia who's famous for the Lego movies. You have Double Negative in London that is famous for the James Bond movies and a lot of live-action work done in in London and then our technology partner Google Intel Epic Games and we together created the first phase of this foundation found three side effects also general members on the software side. This is a slide about our lunch three weeks ago announced on August 10th and you see on this image Rob Rideau doing a keynote in this room actually about the creativity in motion picture. Rob was the visual effects supervisor of the latest Star Wars movies, the solo movie and he presented about the process of creativity and he announced the foundation as part of his keynote and we had a good deal of press from our own trade press within the motion picture business and also from the technology press out there and the mission for the foundation is simple, increase the quality, quantity of open source contribution by establishing three things, a governance model, a legal framework and a community infrastructure. We want to lower the barriers of entry for developing and using open source in our industry. There's a lot of things we're doing that you're already doing if you're working within the mature Linux foundation projects. This is all familiar to you and probably old news but it's new to us. Thank you for indulging us so our goals are to connect to coordinate across projects to develop a continuous integration and build infrastructure that is open to all so that we can streamline the development of build and run time environments, provide better more consistent licensing template on the legal side and provide a clear path for participation and code contribution in our industry. So essentially we want to bring the engineers who are working hard and in the case of open source libraries and initiatives, often the engineers have seen a problem that needed to be solved was not mandated by anyone. They took initiatives and they wrote the code that was needed. They open source for everyone to share. That process in the motion picture business has been in the shadows a little bit and we want to, the foundation wants to shine the light of the work of the engineers and bring them resources and structure. The governance, so our foundation is a non-profit. It's under the Linux foundation. So it's outside of any particular studio or company's firewall. There's a governing board, as you would expect, and there's a technical project group, a technical advisory council that is independent from the governing board to ensure that the engineers in this organization continue to make the decisions about the project. So it's sort of a division between church and state. This is the graph. You've seen a version of this many times. The governing board, the technical advisory council and the projects. And so the tech role is to establish the best practice, identify the resource, coordinate with the community, propose a new project, and we're in that phase right now. Our foundation is new. So we have a number of target projects, but none of them are in. We are an empty vessel three weeks into it. So now the process is a lot about bringing the projects in. And the tech is doing that also being formed as we speak. And the projects will sit on this continuous integration infrastructure that comes to us from the Linux foundation. We've already tested some of the open source libraries that you've seen before on the continuous integration. I don't think I need to sell you on the benefit of that. In our industry, what this will do, however, is that we'll bring an open source infrastructure for our own projects at the foundation, but also for everyone to see in in the industry and open source infrastructure. So right now, people who use open source libraries in their software or in their production pipeline, have a version of that that is not open source that has been developed internally and each one of them is slightly different. And if you want to get into using or contributing to open source software, you have to build one, a form of build infrastructure for yourself. And the this all fine and good, but it's significant effort, many smaller studios, midsize and smaller studios shy away from open source because of those technical requirements. Now, if we have our CI infrastructure in the open, the hope is that it can be adopted wholesale by some small studio who want to get into open source and contribute. And that it will also help the other the bigger studios that already have an infrastructure to to standardize some practices over time. There's an aspect so obviously the Linux foundation is is focused on Linux, the largest studios in the motion picture business are Linux based for their production pipelines, but we also need support for Mac and Windows server. So that's in the plan to to include that as well as a GPU for the real time software and process that are gaining traction. And the benefits so this slide here I will admit is more for our own industry, where we come in and we communicate and socialize what the CI infrastructure is about, then for you because you you are aware of these benefits. But it will be forums that will come with it. There'll be reference build produce outside of any one organization. As I said, we want to lower the barrier of entry. And we want to increase the adoption of something called the VFX reference platform, which is a recommendation recommendation platform that has been created already by volunteer in our industry. So we want to go from recommendation to action on some of the good work that has been done by the volunteer in our industry. So we have three projects that are tested on the CI infrastructure right now. Open EXR, which is a library that deals with with high dynamic range images that existed since a long time inside production. Open color IO that deals with color management within a production pipeline. And open VDB that deal with deep data, a deep image data for doing simulation and explosion and all kinds of things like that. And we're working on the Windows build. The information on our infrastructure is here if someone wants to come and see it. And this is how to participate. So if you're interested in the motion picture industry, you're an engineer, and you want to check out what's going on with this foundation, this is a good point of entry. We have set up the lists and the and attack is going to be formed with its own chairman very soon. And there will be a lot to do. So we are welcoming all help we can get in order to set up the foundation in the years to come. I see that my clock has been reset. Do I really have more time? All right, so I've gone through through all of it. But we have we have anecdotes to to share in any number of ways. I was listening to what Van Jones was saying in his keynote or his presentation earlier. And with great power comes great responsibility. Everyone uses these analogies and in the motion picture industry, although the products we make are for entertainment, we do feel that we have a great responsibility to carry our products in a way that inspire and and foster innovation in in the community. So a real important part of this effort that we're doing is to now shine a light on the engineers that have been working very hard in the trenches to enable all these great motion pictures that we've seen on screen. There are movies like that were on the list that I showed earlier, like the Fast and the Furious movie, for instance, the Last One, where although it looks like a live action movie through and through, when you know how it was made, it's really by and large a computer generated movie. And there was some press that was made about, in particular in that movie, when Paul Walker passed away in the middle of production, and he had to be recreated for the duration of the of the movie itself. So it was an entirely software based exercise to to find the best way to recreate the actors for the last performance in the movies. There's a lot of work that's going on to simulate the world in the motion picture industry, and to render it in a way that is photo real. So we can also create new worlds and allow the filmmakers to bring anything they want on screen, no matter where it is in the future, in the past, in places that don't exist. And so that story could be told in these environments so that we can explore through our mind the great what if could happen if this, if that, both in from romantic committees out to to science fiction. And more and more, this is software based, and this is the work of engineers. So we want to really bring a spotlight on the work of the engineers that work in the motion picture industry. As Van Jones was talking about writing code today is perhaps the most powerful activity that you can do in terms of changing the world. We certainly know that it's the most powerful activity you can do to make movies. And so if you're interested, please don't hesitate to join us. Thank you very much. Thanks, David. Thank you.


The thing is stirring and fumbling in the tower. I am it and it is I. I want to get out. I must get out. Unified forces. It knows where I am. I am Robert Blake. I see the tower in the dark. There's a monstrous odor. Synthesis transfigured. Boarding at the tower window. Tracking and giving away. Shine. I like it. I see it. Coming here. Hell when it's tight and blurred. Black wings. Young sore thoughts save me. Three love burning.


An explosion in fire have occurred in the spare parts warehouse in Nakabino district in Moscow region, the Russian media has reported. According to preliminary reports, the blast was caused by the explosion of an oxygen cylinder. There have been no casualties during the fire that covered an area of over 1,000 square meters. According to reports, there is an old military equipment warehouse and a dormitory of illegal migrants near the venue where the fire broke out. The fire is said to be contained.


Welcome to this ongoing video series on the theory of relativity. In this video we want to take a look at the seminal 1916 paper by Albert Einstein, the foundation of the general theory of relativity. To get us started, here's a quote from Einstein. And this will be our only Einstein quote that's not from the 1916 paper. If you will not take the answer too seriously and consider it only as a kind of joke, then I can explain general relativity as follows. It was formerly believed that if all material things disappeared out of the universe, time and space would be left. According to the relativity theory, however, time and space disappear together with the things. Well let's see if we can figure out what he means by this. Now consider this video. A ball is thrown from a rotating platform and we see that it goes in a straight line at a constant velocity, a inertial motion. But the same process viewed by a camera fixed on the platform shows the ball following a curved trajectory. It's accelerating. In the classical Newtonian perspective, this is explained as follows. The ball travels in a straight line relative to the earth. The platform is rotating relative to earth and therefore it sees the ball following a curved trajectory. What it's really seeing is the effect of its own acceleration. There's no gravitational field causing the ball to accelerate. But what if everything was quote at rest and just as the ball was thrown, a space giant grabbed hold of the earth and spun it? From the Newtonian point of view, we'd say that the platform would stay at rest and the ball would go in a straight line and the platform would see it going in a straight line but the earth which is spinning would now see the ball following a curved trajectory. Now let's think relativistically. In two situations in which you have exactly the same relative rotation between the platform and the earth, the trajectory of the ball is dramatically different. What is the cause of this difference? The Newtonian answer is not that it's the earth or that it's this galaxy over here or that it's this galaxy over here or some combination of those things. Quote space is the cause. In the one case you're viewing from a frame quote fixed in space and in the other from a frame quote rotating in space. But Einstein responds, the law of causality has not the significance of a statement as to the world of experience. Except when observable facts ultimately appear as causes and effects. Space and time are not observable facts. They're concepts, coordinates really, that we use to describe observable facts. In special relativity we concluded that there is no velocity relative to a non-thing. So how can there be rotation relative to a non-thing? Nope, those objective concepts of space and time gotta go. Einstein now extends his principle of relativity into a principle of general covariance. The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of coordinates. That is our covariant with respect to any substitutions, whatever. This requirement of general covariance takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity. The observable phenomena we see must be caused in turn by observable phenomena and the relative positions and motions and properties of those phenomena. If we want to use this coordinate system to describe the world, that's fine. If we want to use this coordinate system to describe the world, that's fine too. In this latter case, we'll have to conclude that there's a gravitational field that causes the ball to curve. That gravitational field will, like the gravitational field that causes this ball to curve, have the property that all objects will experience the same gravitational acceleration. Because of this, Einstein then points out, it will be seen from these reflections that in pursuing the general theory of relativity, we should be led to a theory of gravitation, since we are able to produce a gravitational field merely by changing the system of coordinates. There is indeed a deep connection between gravity and geometry. Let's consider the following geometric illustration. Suppose the screen represents the ground, and we pick two points A and B and we drive stakes into the ground at those points. We then stretch a rope between A and B and pull it top. That will form the shortest path between those points, which would be a line in this case. Then using a yardstick, we could measure distance S along the path from A towards B. So I could tell you how to get to any point on that line. Start at A, travel eight yards along the rope. Those are all physical operations that are independent of any coordinate system. But to describe geometric problems in general, we need to introduce a coordinate system. So suppose we introduce this rectangular graph paper type coordinate system. This is a two-dimensional surface, so we'll need two coordinates. Let the vertical red lines represent a coordinate Y1 is equal to a constant, and the horizontal blue lines represent a coordinate Y2 is equal to a constant. As we travel along the path defined by the rope, at every point we can read off the Y1 and Y2 coordinates, and then produce a plot of Y1 and Y2 versus distance S. Every point along the path will then have two corresponding values of Y1 and Y2 value. If we consider the distance S to take the place of time, then by analogy with physics, we'd say, look, our position as a function of time varies linearly. This is straight line motion and a constant velocity. There's no acceleration, hence there's no gravitational field. This is natural inertial motion. For the exact same physical situation, let's introduce a different coordinate system. Let's call these coordinates X1 and X2. This is a curved coordinate system. X1 equal to a constant will correspond to the magenta circles. X2 equal to a constant will correspond to the green radial lines. For these coordinates, the coordinate plots would not be straight lines, but instead would be curves. Following the physics analogy, we'd say, look, through time this object is being accelerated. It's following a curved path. There must be a gravitational field present. Now, of course, we've already seen that there is a coordinate system in which the path would be described by straight lines. We could say the reason you're seeing curved lines is because you have a curved coordinate system, not because there's gravity present, but we've already seen in a previous video how, by simply going into free fall, you can transform away a, quote, real gravitational field. So this argument goes both ways. I could claim that the reason that you feel the gravitational force while standing on Earth is because you're actually accelerating upward relative to a freely falling reference frame. A great description of these ideas is given by Nobel laureate physicist Max Born in his book, Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It is meaningless to call gravitational fields that occur when a different system of references chosen fictitious in contrast with the real fields produced by near masses. A gravitational field is neither real nor fictitious in itself. It has no meaning at all independent of the choice of coordinates. In the one case, it is particularly the near masses that produce an effect. In the other, it is the distant masses of the cosmos. These concepts, together with the concepts developed in video four of this series, where we showed that the geometry of spacetime must, in some sense, correspond to that of a curved surface, have led us to the very threshold of the general theory of relativity. Incredibly, as we will see, essentially all the math that was needed for general relativity was already lying on the table in the field of differential geometry, waiting just for Einstein to pick it up and apply to physics. Accordingly, in our next video, that is the very topic we will take on.


Good day, film investors! What's going on with the darlings of the market? The Facebooks, the fang stocks? I'm sure you all want to know the answer what to do. Well, I'm going to discuss the most important factors that affect investing in that today and I believe it will give you a better perception on what to do with your positions. Let's dig into it. The factors I want to discuss is the increased volatility, Facebook's story, what will happen to Facebook's business and stock, the momentum, growth fundamentals, the inflows of cash and outflows, which are very important for investing in the short term in the fang and nasdaq stocks. We're going to compare the current tech stock levels with the 2000 bubble, understand the risk, especially the regulatory risk and how to position ourselves. Finish with a note on Tencent. So it hasn't really been a good week for the nasdaq. I'm filming this as the market is open quiet day as I'm filming this. Hope it will stay like that. But this is what happened up till first date. The nasdaq was down 4.21% for the week. Facebook is down 10% for the week, which is a big hit. However, put into perspective, you can see the nasdaq is up 120% so it's a minor bump there and Facebook is also up 540% so another minor bump. The question is, is it a bump or is it a structural trend? More about that later. And here you can see how the fang stocks exploded on performance over the last year. They really outperformed everything else. The key over that outperformance is and Goldman reported it very well back in the summer of 2017, then issued a report saying what are the factors that are influencing fang prices, fang stocks and what are the risks that coming out. That day the fang stocks dropped 3 to 7% but then the market forgot about what Goldman was saying. However, those are the key components what you have to know what's going on. Let's dig into Goldman's report and apply it to the current environment. So first what Goldman said is that the fang is making a bigger, bigger part of the indices which increases the risk because if an index is exposed to only 5 stocks that's not good for the environment and when the trend reverses the momentum trend the purchasing the inflows reverts then you see a big big drop and increased volatility and this is what is happening exactly now. You can see this from the Goldman report the momentum was spiking up everybody was rushing into fang stocks, momentum stocks trying to get into the trend and take advantage of the trend. When all those people pile up this is end summer 2017 and the trend has continued up to January 2018 which made extremely stretched valuations and extremely crowded trades. Everybody was after those stocks and if you look at the positions of hedge funds you can see that their top positions it's Amazon, Facebook, Time Warner for the arbitrage, Alphabet, Microsoft. So fang stocks are there and everybody's chasing them and if you look at the position in their portfolio 8, 6, 9, 7% of the portfolio of hedge funds is in those stocks. So when the momentum is so strong when everybody's rushing into that the risks just piles up piles up piles up and the most most important driver for stock prices is the momentum which increases the risk especially the short-term risk and that's what you have to think about those hedge funds those hedge funds are going to sell and that momentum that crowdness everybody's going to be scared and run away so there is a big risk of high increased volatility and this is something you have to think about your portfolio positions are you going to okay keep something forever because you like the business you like the business model you like the exposure to billions of customers and keep one part of your portfolio as a trade as a rebalancing portfolio okay this stock goes down or I'm keeping liquidity when if it drops at these levels I'm going to buy I'm going to sell and I'm going to try to get some alpha by taking advantage of the volatility that we are seeing now stocks go up down down up down every week so that's one way of approaching this position see how much risk can you take and don't fight the trend if the trend is negative really see how much you can take advantage of the trend that's from a short-term perspective and that's what's going on let's look at the fundamentals the fundamentals are there and they always matter and let's see if we are in a tech bubble as we have been in the 2000s if we compare the size we are there fang aggregated is 13% of the SAP 500 tech bubble was 16% the top companies the valuation was double in the 2000s so the valuation is not such a concern plus the cash positions of the companies now is 10 times bigger almost than what it was in the 2000s further the cash flow yield is also four times higher but the profitability isn't that big if you look at the valuations from a price to book perspective so what is the market valuing you can see that now we are at the same level with SAP 500 2000 bubble this means that the market is valuing the intangibles the customer user base extremely high so each customer the value of the customer grows grows grows but that's also where the risk is so we have mentioned also momentum risk but now we come to customer value risk what are the companies going to do and to quote goldman fang has created positioning extremes factor crowding and difficult to decipher risk narratives of the risks big risk is regulatory risk which changes and changes the value of that user base that is pushing up price to book values and focusing on the intangible value and this is one of the big risks after 20 years the european union is changing is data protection regulation which will have a big impact on facebook and google if i google something and then go to facebook what i googled is perfectly targeted to me and those ads are perfectly targeted to what i might buy google isn't such isn't that precise and youtube ads aren't that precise however facebook is extremely precise extremely powerful there if regulators see that we feel affected that our privacy is affected we start to raise our voice as consumers facebook will get regulated as microsoft was regulated in the 2000s which forced microsoft to lower the margins lower exposures and there was even microsoft saying like it is like coca-cola should sell two cans of Pepsi in a six pack and that's what can happen also to facebook or it could limit the power the value of the user and as the value of the user is the intangible price in the stock prices that's your risk that's the long-term risk so you have to see whether this is a bump a buying opportunity or it is a structural trend that's going to affect those companies for a longer term that affects the value of the user by increased regulation by allowing competition to enter the market by adding much more randomness to their targeted specific ad adverts and will they be able to reinvent their business model to target other areas to add value that's a very very big question and that's a question you have to see for yourself and see how to position again the parts of your portfolio just on facebook engagement time is dropping dramatically the user base is slowing down the growth isn't that fast so that's the long-term risk i have mentioned the short-term risk is the momentum the crowded trades that are increasing now the volatility because there is a lot of money that might want to get out and the long-term structural or trend from the user base from the engagement time and all those metrics that with the regulation might change so you have to see what is going on for yourself and adjust the risk reward it's all about risk reward as goldman was saying it's investing is about the risk even if nobody wanted to see it back in the summer of 2017 let me finish with tencent and something again incredible that happened tencent reported earnings plus 50 in revenue plus 61 in operating profit plus 75 in profits but the stock went down what 10 percent over five days incredible why because the ceo said that looking forward we are substantially increasing our investment in areas including video payment cloud artificial intelligent technology and smart retail which will impact our near-term earnings but which we believe can generate long-term value for shareholders and growth opportunities so investors in that crowded trade they are chasing next round earnings everything is focused on getting a quick buck not on the long-term shareholder value and that's also something you have to see and see whether you will be able to take advantage of dips in the future thank you for watching looking forward to your comments tomorrow we will be discussed the stock market news the Fed and what's going on in the politics and tariffs extremely important again huge week that's why I'll make two videos one more dedicated to stocks one more dedicated to the macro environment thank you I'll see you in the next video