Welcome to Before Else Be Graffed by Hedy MacLachlan. That was good. He was worried that he wouldn't be able to pronounce my name, but that's fine. I can barely pronounce it at the best of times. Greetings, humans. I'm Katie and I'm going to be talking about a dead guy. I work for Anchor Engineering. There are a few of my colleagues in the room. Say hi guys. Wow, okay, literal. Okay, so we had a problem that we tried to solve, and I'm going to be trying to describe, hopefully not too quickly, the different ways and solutions that we went about solving. A problem, hopefully, these solutions may apply to you, and I hope that you learned something. So, we work for a web hosting company, and we collect a lot of data about servers, metrics, NGOS, all that kind of fun stuff. We've got OpenStack data, IP traffic, networking data. We have a whole lot of data, and not a really good way to visualize everything we need when we need it, because if you want to see what a server is doing, three hour old data is not going to help. An infographic that's been hand tailored is not going to help you. What's also not going to help you is trying to port it into Excel.  So, what we want is essentially a way that we can present nice data in a usable format that we can consume quickly. Infographics don't work, Excel doesn't work, but we want to have fast and reliable. So, why not both? This is not my deck. Why is this not my deck? I'll run with it. I don't know what's coming up. There we go. I'm in big in, in big in. Hi. Okay. So, that was caching. So, that was going to run. I should be okay now. So, even though this really isn't a good thing according to some comments I've heard around, it is really a pet-first-catal visualization or virtualization problem where we want something we can use and it doesn't look horrible with graphing all the things. So, it's a fairly broad thing that we just want to fix everything. And 12 months later I think I might have worked it out. So, my solution, I named it after a dead guy. We have an entire stack that we've built. This is just the front-end talk. We have an entire back-end and user systems named after other dead people and there have been other talks about this. This guy is the Italian guy. Everyone else is French. Probably front-end versus back-end thing. But I'll just be focusing on the front-end metrics and graphing in JavaScript. So, JavaScript doesn't scare anyone. CSS doesn't scare anyone. Okay. So, all the code that I'll be showing today is on GitHub because Open Source and it's pretty much just graphing and not the linked lists like line graphs, area graphs, all that kind of fun stuff. So, let's start off first. What is a metric? We are going to be talking, sorry, not time series, a time series. So, giggle, giggle. We have a time series database that we built and it's literally a point over time. So, you have time then and time later. So, this is really a nice format if you want to get multiple different metrics and align them all and see how things have changed in relation to each other. There are other solutions out there for this. There is graphite. There is influxDB. There's a whole lot of other things that sort of grab the entire problem set and give you a box that does stuff. But what we found is that it would be a whole lot more efficient if we could separate what we were trying to graph as a data source with what it conceptually represents. So, Machiavelli is very data agnostic. It doesn't care where it comes from. Nagios OpenStack data is what we are using for it internally. Machiavelli don't care. It's a strong independent Ruby on Rails that can take anything. The main way that it works out exactly what a metric is and how we've tried to describe it is that a metric is a metric. And that an origin is that decoupling of the way that the data is stored and how it's humanly represented, which is a really big distinction that we felt that graphite and other such solutions were clogging together and duplicating data and not being very efficient. I may not have explained that very well, so let me bring back a slide from before about the time series. This is time. You may recognize it from your spice area or your garden. We have fresh time and dried time. These can both be used to make lemon lime chicken or lemon time chicken. We want to add them to a margarita or some sort of mejito or something. So we know as humans what we use this thing for. A machine would not. So we've got a plant and we've got a jar. You can turn the leaves on the plant into dried time. You can turn the jar of dried time into dried time and then you can use them in the exact same way and you don't need to describe or re-implement those sort of things. So they're both metrics. They've both got the same context, but they come from different stores. I thought of this and I still don't understand it, but it works. So dry implementation. I don't have to re-code anything. Actually, I think it's really nice and I like cooking. So time series. The point is that once you know how to get time from a jar, you can get cumin from a jar or you can get anything else from a jar because you've already told the machine how to get it.  So first step, accessing the data. We need to get the information out of the database, the JSON feed, wherever it is, and into the application. This is not a way to do it. You do not. If you care about the sanity of your systems, you do not want to dynamically pull JSON feeds arbitrarily. Chrome won't let you for good reason because there are security implications. You do not want to normally create cross-site vulnerabilities. You do not want to add issues with the security of your information. And sometimes you don't have the ability to say, I want my JSON feed to be able to be queried arbitrarily from anywhere on the Internet, which would be a bad thing. So what we did is we have this front-end JavaScript manipulation that actually encapsulates its own internal API that pulls all this data server side, which means that we can isolate the authentication mechanism so we can say this server with this IP has the right to be able to pull this data. And it means that we can pull from local files, which you can't do in a browser natively. And we can also have a level of store obfuscation. So users may not be able to know or see where the actual data comes from, but the server does. So there's a whole lot of nice things that happen with that. Once you get the data, you want to sanitize it because it is external data. You do not know what's in it. But the problem with time series is that time is only consistent sometimes. You have issues where you may stop collecting data. You may have missing data. You may have irregular data points. And you want to make sure that what you're getting can just be slurped up by JavaScript. And it can just go, okay, I'm just going to graph this now because you have an entire web server that can do a whole lot of calculations on it before you have to ingest it. And since you have control of that, the JavaScript isn't going to be horrendous. So we have the option, caveat, to sanitize any data that we bring in automatically so we can do live interpolation on it or backfilling for zero points. This may not be the best solution for every kind of data that comes in because you may want to see when a server has not reported anything. So it's still a solution to the issue of insane data. But it may not always be required. You may know that your data is sane already. Part of this stack that we've developed has our Voltaire back end, and we have our Machiavelli front end. We've also got a few layers in between, including a RESTful API that we've called CEST because it's RESTful. We also have a whole lot of other consumers and some of them go directly to the database. Some of them have this sanitized input based on how they want to consume the data. So in this case, when we're collecting from our data store, we do not have to do any sanitization because we are in control of where that data is. A series of numbers is all well and useful, but you want to know what it's about. Metadata probably isn't the right term because it has been overloaded recently with other metadata. We're talking about servers here, not human beings yet. So this is what I spoke about earlier. You have a number going from zero to 100, but without any context, you don't know that it's a server CPU. In the example that I gave earlier about time, the metric might be displayed to us as garden, herb patch, time. As a machine, we know that that is uniquely identifiable. As a human, that doesn't read well. So as a metadata, we can dynamically say, you see this thing, split it up, put some verbs and things in there, and make it a nice title for us. So we can take what information that we can make it useful. And incorporate your business logic. We do get some information depending on where we get our data, but we can also make assumptions based on what we know about it. So we could use a relational database and we could have views and we could have computed fields and we could do a lot of things. But we're not going to because this is 2015. So we can have a different solution where we dynamically derive what we need when we need it. So we can't always add data directly to our data source and our business rules might change. But we can add the data when we're going to consume it. So say the brand of the time in a jar. We may buy master foods one day. We may buy another place that does dried herbs. Hoits, I think. We don't have to then go to our database and say, see all this time we are going to find and replace everywhere. Because that's just silly. It's more data that we don't need copied everywhere. So how we've solved this particular problem is that we get the server to dynamically work out what's going on for us. We've done a whole lot of server side stuff. Now we get to get to the cool stuff. There's a demo coming up. So as I said, my slides are really good once I refresh them. But we have same meaningful data. The JavaScript is really easy because JavaScript is horrible if you don't know what you're expecting. So a lot of this stuff has come from other projects including Shutterstock, which do images like Getty images and stuff. You wouldn't think that any of these people have had graphing solutions that they've open sourced, but they do. And it's very nice, except when you want to extend them. And they don't accept upstream changes because they thought that copying their content onto GitHub was that. So I do run active forks of all of these to add nice things like UTC and such. I've also created nicer graphing styles, including tea leaves from Tezio, which you may have heard of before. It's one of the things by Jason Nixon, I believe. He goes around with a Black Adder avatar of Hugh Laurie, and he made a system called Decarts, and he did a whole lot of visualization. Then he was picked up by GitHub, which is why their visualizations are really nice now. So we have a demo. Here is a demo. Can we see this on the screen? Okay. All right. So what I have here is a list of points from the government, which have a nice JSON feed that you can see half-hour intervals of various metrics for weather stations. This example is exactly why I need to pre-sanitize my data. Last time I gave this talk, it broke because the government had a power outage at one of their stations and missed points. So this entire thing exploded. This one will not because I've enabled the, my data is insane, please fix it for me, check box. So we have, this is a thing, please don't go to it now. Check it out later. I really do want to have this thing keeping on running at least until 20 past. So I've got a URL here that looks somewhat human readable. So we've got a metric, our data sources, the Bureau of Meteorology, and we've got say Campbelltown air temperature and Gosford air temperature. Put them all together. We can see trends. We can see that say something was hotter and then it went colder. And this is one of our stacked graphs. So we've got things where we can say, I want to say, I compare things on two different axes or I want to remove things or I want to say zoom and see more data and dynamically resize to fit what kind of data we're seeing. And all this is dynamic and anytime I can copy this URL and see the exact same thing in another browser or send it around to my friends. There are a whole lot of features in here. I'm not sure whether my slides are going to expand on this more. Hey, let's do the thing. Click a thing and see a change. So we have a whole lot of different options here. Everything is going to be stored within this URL. Say this is historic data. We can click a button and remove a line. If I can use my mouse, which I can't. We can zoom. We can see all the things. So a whole lot of server-side stuff for a whole lot of live, dynamic, manipulatable things. So as I said, that URL is really special. And since I'm still talking really fast, I'm going to have a tirade now because I can. Because I have you in a room. And there is beer tonight if you're nice. As I said, we have this thing where we want to be able to share a URL around the place. The problems that we have are, you saw how dynamic this thing was and this view. If you want to say, here, look at this thing. How are you going to say, I want you to see this exact setup of my graphs? You can't use cookies because they're isolated on your machine. And dashboards require storage, which is just too hard. And we have explicitly tried to store the least amount of data that we can. There is no database here at all. It's all live and dynamic. And the only thing that we are storing on this particular server at this time is just the data files, the JSON files, because the Bureau of Meteorology wants to charge you if you want to pull that life, which is not very open at all. So we can store our state purely in this URL by a means of black magic and non-RFC same things. This application breaks the laws of thermodynamics as it comes to URLs because there is a little bit more. This RFC is horrendous. It is outdated. And I will prove to you why it's horrible. This is the uniform resource identified generic syntax. It is 10 years old, and it is not very specific at all. It's very generic. Emphasis on generic. There is clearly defined states and systems and quantifiers and reserved characters, but not for the query string. The query string is important because it's the string that queries. No one has any idea what they're doing with this because it doesn't get defined in the RFC. So do we know what a URI is? We have a URI. We've got different sections. There are some special characters. Am I going too quickly? No? OK. We can have query strings. We can do a query. We can have a fragment. We can have the hash. We can have the path and special characters again. This basic functionality is defined by the RFC. But then it gets complicated. For these examples, I will have a human interpreter and a part interpreter. So at the top, we're going to have a query string. Middle is the responses. And the bottom is going to be what rails parses. So that's the machine response. Start off with a start and a stop time. These, as a human, we know that there's seconds since Epic. I am defining human here as someone in the room. Because this particular date format, machines are really good at, and humans will learn to be good at. Because standards about what the U.S. does with their dates and their months and their days and their flipping and the inverted triangle. So the statistically average human in the room here can understand that. This is fine. The machine can understand this because there is one start and one stop. And I know that these are things. Rails also happens to know that they're numbers, which is really nice. We go a step further, level one. We started at zero, going to one. Again, something that the humans in this room understand. The problem we now have is that we want to, this store and source, we want to split it. And the wonderful tilde is an allowed character in a query stream in every single web server I could find. I think this possibly dates back to when you had home directories with a tilde name. So you are allowed to use this. So we are using it. We are defining... and I'm actually a human. The machine can parse this as soon as it's told what to do. The machine in this case, I'm assuming is Rails and then the business logic about splitting on tilde comes later. So this is all valid. This is all fine and this will work. But then we get problems. We try to have two variables and the machine goes beep. There's only one. The machine ignores a second value with Rails 4.1. This will work fine in some Python web systems. This will work okay in possibly some Perl ones. This works K and jQuery, I believe as well. Rails and... rack? Rack. Rack doesn't know what to do. So what does the RFC have to say about this? One person is interpreting it differently. It doesn't actually say anything of what to do when you want to have duplicate keys. People made their own standard here and new peers to the same standard. So it's not really a standard. It's more like a set of guidelines and actual rules. So some systems like to add extra braces here which confused me as a statistic among here that is quite average, it confused me. So I think that it may have confused other people. The first time you've seen weird brackets in a URL. But Rails thinks that this is fine because it knows that oh, I am declaring my key as an array and I can have multiple values. You can extend this further and get near JSON-like syntax in a URL using a whole lot of brackets and a whole lot of nesting. But you keep getting things like this isn't actually a thing. It is a metric which has 0 of x and 1 of x and I can't read that and I wrote the thing. But then as soon as you get really, really complex everything is a bit weird because now you have some singleton, some multiple, some other things and then both explode as soon as in Rails 4 you try to have de-separate data types. You cannot have a string and an array under the same tree of your JSON encoded document in the URI. jQuery does. jQuery is better than Rails at this. This is not cool. This is why we cannot have nice things. There is no standard, there's no anything. Everything is ugly and mismatched and all I want to do is just store some data in your URI so I don't have to do cookies or anything. So what's the solution? I made my own. Now there's n plus 1 standards. So first step.  So brackets, brackets, brackets, braces, wiggles. Brackets, braces, parentheses, p, b, b, p. Okay. So before rack gets a load of my query string I change things because I say, see this metric, assume that's an array because I know I'm going to have one or more and as a human an array of one is an array. Step one. Step two. The ordering is wonderful but what we can do is say, see that one tilde? Let's duplicate that and have some sort of known queries and tags so then I can say have foo, bar, line, computed, green and that's fine. That's safe and the human can read and write it. And this is the thing. You want to be able to write these things because we don't like GUIs. We like to be able to type things on a command line. You should be able to curl this. I don't know how you're going to read the JavaScript output but you can get it. The problem though is once you have this standard you then have to declare it in the front end and the back end. So I'm not exactly sure whether they still exactly match my defined standards but I had to write something in Ruby and JavaScript and that filled good. The solution to this is Haskell because you can write JavaScript in Haskell. I'm scared of this but it will be an interesting experience. I'm sure Katie Miller will show me something on Friday about how it's awesome if she's doing that talk again. So a summary. How am I going on time? I am perfectly on time for ten minutes of questions. I think yes. Yes, the AP guys agree with me. So in summary, dynamic coding is fun.  Analytics is fun. You know what else is fun? This is the last talk and then we get to go and drink but you still need to do lightning talks unless you're running away and I have mentioned before there is another talk on this by the unanimous good person in the back corner there. If you're disagreeing with yourself I'm not sure if that's words hard talk bad. Tomorrow somewhere it's Haskell, it's Seff, it's all the buzzwords and this is all online. Please.  This is all on GitHub, forks, issues, patches, everything. Do all the things. Thank you for listening and if there are any questions written question from the audience for someone who the AV guy thinks is. Hi. Hello. First off, thank you very much for delivering typos on GitHub for the reviewer projects. Yes, context for those. I did give a lightning talk version of this in three minutes at a DevOps and somebody tweeted it which was great. Except they misspelled my project name because they couldn't spell Machiavelli. So I registered the project that literally just says perhaps you mean Machiavelli with one C. I think it is. They did two Cs. So I had to register that and try to get the people back. So, thank you. Other than that, in terms of visualisations, I know some of this is going on to the next talk that you mentioned before. Can you use tools such as GraphVis for your hastal visualisations or are you sticking with like pure web canvas type of rendering? All these use SVGs and layers on top of D3 which is really accessible because not a lot of people don't expect Graphs to be in a web plus I'm not sure where the GraphVis has all the shiny things where you can dynamically change and zoom and stuff. I'm guessing GraphVis creates images. Yeah, so if you want to start dynamically removing things, zooming things, you can't really do that in an image. You could click really hard but it's not going to change it. Plus, we do eat our own dog food and one of the ways we are integrating this is there is a little button called PNP for Nagios set up that will, once I get it working, link to the Machiavelli version as opposed to the PNP for Nagios version. So that's sort of you expect a web thing. We're a web hosting company. Why do we want a static thing? I don't know. Just make about 10 different SVGs in advance depending on what Tom wants to do. I don't know. Yeah, that's called PNP for Nagios where you have static images all the way down. Seriously? Yeah, you can get 24-hour time. You can get a day. You can get a week. You can get a month. You can also get lossy data and you can also have this as a ever-scrolling document. This is a thing. PNP number four, Nagios. It's ROD data visualization that is 20 years old or 10 years old, some decades. Anyway, yes, hello. You use the tilde to separate your... Yes. Yeah. What about this Ford Slash? I think we're used to it. Why couldn't you have used that? A Ford Slash in a query string? Yeah, that would work fine. Just an idea. No, wait. I know the answer to this one. I have tried this. No, no, no. I've thought of these things before. Somewhere along the stack it will encode it into a %20 without you asking. Somewhere. I think it was NGNX or something. Yeah. So those kind of encoding things do not respect the query string, which they really should because that's actually defined. But I wanted to not just be lazy and have, say, Kevin forbid, an XML document encoded with percentages and stuff, because no human's got time for that. You can't go %20, %25, %2F all the way down. It's horrible. Hello. Hi. Hi. If everything is on the URL and dynamically done, what kind of size limits do you have there? What's the most amount of data you can graph at one time or things like that? How big is your local laptop memory and whatever browser you're using that I'm assuming respects the amount of memory you have in your system to be able to actually display once it's finished generating? But there's no length limits, say, on the URL or anything like that? Length limits would be restricted to the web server. In Rails development mode, that is 1024 characters. Engine X, I believe, is 4096 unless you extend it. Apache might be different, but it's literally based on the other layers. I can take anything. So it's a lower stack limitation, but there are always ways around that because they're all open source and you can change settings. Queries, questions, qualms. No one wants to berate me on the fact that I used herbs. It was time. It was time. It's fine. It's not a regano. Gosh. If that's it, I thank you very much for your time. Right. Thanks, Katie, and we have a gift for you for taking the talk. Thank you. Thanks.


Okay, welcome back everyone. We looked at the life of Stephen and we saw how he was such a great testimony. He got introduced in Acts chapter 6 and we have already read about his martyrdom in Acts chapter 7.   So much for us to learn from him. A true disciple we can say of the Lord Jesus. So let's take time to maybe reflect on what we have learned so far. So if there are any questions you may go ahead and ask them. We'll talk about all those things and then move on to chapter 8. So I just have a few questions and one of the first questions that I want to ask is, in verse 3 we say, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush. So it says the angel of the Lord and then it's actually God who is actually speaking and we all know that the bush actually represented God. So God was speaking, it says I am the God of Jacob and Abraham and even in verse 38 I think the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai. So even we know that in Mount Sinai it's God actually who spoke. So does the Old Testament the angel actually signifies God always? This is one of the first questions and then I'll go ahead. Guys, Jefina, that's asked like a theologian. I'm glad you noticed that portion there where it says angel. So he said verse 31 of Acts 7 and when 40 years had passed an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush. So we don't really kind of give a lot of emphasis on that because as you pointed out we are very clear that it was God who spoke. And the other was Jefina in verse 38. This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai. So you see the angel, right? If you actually look up that word, angelos is a messenger. So just because it says angel does not mean that it's a heavenly being called as we classify angels. It simply means messenger. So God is the one who minister to Moses that we know. So we go by the meaning of that word angel. So in English, yes, it seems like it's the created heavenly being the angels but that's not the understanding. Message, messenger, angelos in Greek. I hope that clarifies it. So the other question that I have is in verse 38, who received the limit of 44 rankers. So I believe it's the 10 commandments maybe but I'm not sure that what this word actually signifies. And they also want to know God verse 43 where it says, I love, can you read the Babylon, God's truth, I mean, I just want to know the meaning of the words of verse 43 and what this meaning or rankers actually means. Yes, sure, Jefina. So going back to the portion where it says this is he was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai. And with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles. Oracles that is referring to the 10 commandments which were given to Moses to be passed on to the children of Israel. And verse 43 is it. So this particular section which Stephen spoke is quoted from Amos chapter 5. So basically he is just quoting what Amos the prophet had already mentioned and Amos actually had said beyond Damascus. But for whatever reason Stephen has put the word there beyond Babylon. Okay, now why he did that we don't at least I don't know but he is just what Stephen is trying to say is that even though God was so real to the people they were worshiping other gods and goddesses. So that's why he says Tabernacle of Moloch, Remfan, Images and it's like saying you know God will carry you away beyond Babylon is I don't know in my view it's like judgment isn't it? Like because you're away from God that you will experience God's judgment is what Stephen was trying to tell them. So that's the thing. Does it answer your question or not really but yeah I just shared some views maybe you could look up further. What was the specific? I just wanted to know the meaning of this. Actually I'm not very sure of the Tabernacles and stuff. I'm still early morning. So I just wanted to know what actually my wife mentioned this over here. And the reason as you said it's right because they kept worshiping the other gods but maybe I'll just look up the other gods and show. I hope I'm not taking a lot of... It's good to look into the details. Yeah I have three. So in verse 42 you see they made a verse 41 and 42. It says they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifices, rejoiced in the work of the gods. So and then in verse 42 it says that God came the month to worship the post of heaven as it is written. So what does the host of heaven actually signifies? They worship the calf and understand that. Is it the post of heaven is God? I just don't know. I'm just wondering like what he gave them up on. Okay. See here Stephen is summarizing that they worship everything else other than God. That's his point. So he's not being very specific to a timeline where it's only the worship of a calf because he's also speaking of Moloch, Remphan. These are all gods and goddesses of other religions, philosophies, places, communities. So it's not specific to a particular timeline. So in general he's saying you're worshiping everything other than God. So in that context when he says you worship the host of heaven, he means that there was also practices where people worshiped stars, you know, like heavenly bodies and heaven. So you could also infer that as heavenly hosts like maybe angel worship. So all these false practices were there among the people which were picked up from other communities. So that was his point. So I hope it answers. It's not specific to a timeline because if it was only to a timeline, you're right. So when Aaron and all were there, only the calf is mentioned. But it's over a long period of time. In general they are saying that he's saying that your hearts are so far away from God. Okay. Sure. What is the next one? So the next one is I just want to clarify this in verse 22. We see Moses was mighty in words and deeds. But we all know what he said in Exodus 4-10 that I am slow of speech and slow of tongue. Moses says this with God. So I heard people preaching that even if you're me, I explain God will help you through this. And I once, I think it happened in Bible call you on someone objectedly. No, in Acts 22 it says that he's so mighty in words and deeds. So was Moses mighty in words or no? Because he himself said I am slow of speech, slow of tongue. So what is your point? Okay. So for this we must understand the life of Moses. Thankfully Stephen is narrating it like a story. He said the first 40 years of his life, he was in Egypt and he was raised up as a prince of Egypt. So our understanding when it was 22 it says Moses learned it all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was mighty in words and deeds. We accept it as it is because he was scholar, he was learned and a scholarly man. The other people in Egypt would not have had the training and the knowledge which Moses carried. So he was mighty in words and deeds that we know. Okay. Now this was during the time that he was in Egypt. Now he went to become a deliverer of God's people. He struck the Egyptian and then he fled from Pharaoh. He went into the wilderness. Okay.  So it is said in this way. Okay. I am just sharing what I have heard and a lot of commentators say that in the preparation of Moses maybe he thought that initially he thought that God had chosen the right person. God thank you for choosing me because I am so well equipped to be the deliverer and he went ahead in his own strength to do what God called it to do. But in the next 40 years God worked out his character. Where he came to a point in the next 40 years where he said, why are you sending me? I can't even speak properly. So it's like his dependence moved from self or not even upon God. It was really unfortunate that he was in this position when the burning bush experience happened where he was trying to deny the assignment. Okay. So it's the same person, learned person but he's been through a journey and because of that journey you could say he had a change of mind or he had lost all the confidence which he had in his upbringing. In his qualifications where he had come to a point where he realized it's going to take more than my qualifications to do what God wants me to do. So some people say God built his character to eventually depend on God more than himself. So it's the same that he was mighty in deeds and words but as he went through the wilderness experience his heart changed and his mind changed. So we have to see this timeline difference. I have one final question. In verse 58 we see the cast in mouth stoned him and the witnesses lay down their clothes at the feet of the young man. So you have any idea on what practice is this? Like I feel like it's a cultural practice maybe after stoning they lay down their clothes or something. So I just want to know is there any idea, any significant difference between that? Yes. So yes, Tehfiga, it seems like there was a certain practice once the people were outraged they cast him out of the city. So you do read about this casting out of the city stoning even in the case of Paul. So maybe it was the common way of treating betrayers, treating whatever term you can use but anyone who was convicted under the Roman law. So execution of Stephen happened in the same way as would have happened for any other betrayer. And this is a traditional Jewish custom, so you can read it up. There are certain steps to that where they store the person outside of the city and there are steps to it. I am just looking at one portion here that is describing the Jewish custom of stoning. And it says in some Jewish writing called as Mishnah, the stoning has some steps. Like once the trial is finished, a man is convicted, he is brought to be stoned. Ten cubits from the place of stoning are told to confess their sin. And then they go ahead to strip the person and there are other practices such as the witnesses push the criminal from behind, he falls face downward. So it's a custom of punishment which I think they followed for Stephen also, they tried to follow the same thing. And as far as the clothes is concerned, it doesn't mention here that it is there in the Jewish custom. But my guess is that it could be because remember even Jesus's clothes, it talks about the criminal's clothes, they put lots to actually get it. So something with the clothes could be there, some practice with the clothes. In this case, they just brought the clothes and put it at Saul's feet. One second, one second. Let's look at it. Yeah, let me just have a look at that. Please tell me the verse there, 58. There are clothes. Okay, fine. Yeah, so my apologies. I confuse this with the clothes of Jesus, right? So there are clothes it says, yeah, so then it would be the clothes of the stoners and not of Stephen. So they put down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. So yeah, I don't know, that's part of the tradition also. But you're right, it's their clothes. Okay, could be. It seems like a custom. Yeah, seems like a custom which they practiced. Sure. Okay, thank you. Anything else about Stephen? If others have something to share or talk about, what do you like the most about Stephen? Okay, so Jeffrey is saying boldness. How about the others? Clearly studies the books of the... Yeah. Yes, that's a good idea. Good views from the outside can be... True. So well taught or we could say he had learned the details of the Jewish law and the customs. So that's true. Good church he was quite well aware of. And imagine I began by saying that the initial years of the church were roughly eight years. Isn't it? So Stephen would have been part of the church for like some six years, seven years, something like that. But in six or seven years to have believers like Stephen in the church who are so strong, so bold, full of the Holy Spirit and power is amazing. Yeah. Imagine if our churches were filled with such people. Anything else? Class? The others? Is there any views?   True. Thank you. All right. So let's move on. The life of Stephen always is... It kind of makes you upright, awakens you to live that full, bold life for Christ. And let's see what else is happening in the Book of Acts and who are the other people and what they are doing for the Lord. So until Acts chapter eight is the roughly eight years that will be completed. So Acts chapter eight is another beautiful, beautiful chapter which highlights the life of a person known as Philip. And we will see all that God did through the life of Philip. But then the beginning of the chapter is the closing off of the death of Stephen.  So let's begin with Acts chapter eight and verse one. Let's read three verses which are connected to chapter seven and then we can go to the next section. So who would like to read three verses please? Acts chapter eight was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem. And they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles. And the devout man carried Stephen, state them to his burial and made great lamentation over them. As for Saul, he may have a coffin church entering every house and dragging off men and women, coveting them to prison. Thank you Rosalind. So it says a great persecution arose. But the fact is that we have been seeing persecution right from Acts chapter three. There's something or the other that is happening against the church of Jerusalem, the leaders. Now we have seen the death of Stephen, one of the church members has been killed. So persecution has been there all along and it seems great enough. But Luke now describes the season of persecution as great persecution. More than what we have read till now, there is this whole release of persecution against the people who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Against the church, it says, against the church of Saul, all the believers in the church of Jerusalem. And what happened as a result of this, people were scattered. That is understandable. Maybe they fled for safety to other parts of the Judean region. They fled for safety to outside of the Judean region. But what did they carry in these, let's say, you know, seven years of being in the church?  And these ready people gave it to other parts of the region. The Apostle's state back is what we are told. So it also specifies it throughout the region of Judea and Samaria. So that's primarily where the people went. And it also tells us a little bit about burial of Stephen. So obviously, Stephen was stored, he died, but the church ordered his life by burying him. And they were all broken or grieving because of the death of such a precious person in their lives. And they lamented or they grieved over the death of Stephen. There is a mention of Saul here twice in these three verses. Earlier we saw that people put their clothes at his feet. But now twice it says Saul consenting to the death leading the team that persecuted Stephen. Third was Saul, he made havoc of the judge. So we must understand that persecution of the church was a reality. But there is an individual who is heading up or who is keen to this persecution, which would be Saul. And so we get this image of the man known as Saul that he was truly zealous to defend his faith. Now why do you think this young man was so zealous to go against those who believed in Jesus?  Maybe you can speak it to the... So I remember Paul saying in one verse that because of Christ I think nothing is meaningful anymore. And there he says I am imperfect. Like he was a real Jew and how much more he can get. Maybe one of his thought was he believed so much in this Jewish tradition. He had so much idea about the Jewish tradition where he might be soon too much into the tradition that might have led to this. It's just one of my views. Thank you, Jafina. So yes, Paul does talk about himself as somebody who was brought up in the Jewish traditions better than anyone else. So Philippians chapter 3 verse 5 where he says he was circumcised on the eighth day. So you see all the law was followed very correctly in his upbringing. And then he says that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. He was a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee. So his qualifications in the Jewish faith were notable.  We know the perspective that the Jews had about Jesus that he came to go against the laws of Moses and the instructions of worship. So even Paul or Saul at that time he had the same mindset that Jesus and all his followers where a threat to the faith which they had practiced all their lives. And that is why he wanted to go against the believers of Jesus Christ. Also one thing that comes to my mind is that though he was doing all these things somewhere we can sense that he was true to what he believed even when he was not a follower of Jesus. You see his character, his personality, he is so passionate, isn't it? He is so passionate for what he believes that before he comes through Jesus he is a persecutor. And what does the passage say? What kind of a persecutor was he? In verse 3, he made havoc of the church, meaning he created a big scene. That means a lot of people were being persecuted and people were scared that they heard the name of Saul. Entering every house it says meaning mercy, no mercy. He did not have any compassion for the followers of Jesus. And it also adds there dragging of men and women. So when Luke writes men and women the understanding we get is that ok, dragging men that may show that the people are brutal. But dragging women shows that they were beyond brutal because they had no mercy even for women. And that's the kind of anger that Saul carried in his heart for those who were going against the Jewish faith. Now he was also putting people in the prison so it gives us a very scary picture of this man called Saul. Whenever we see somebody who is against God to this extent our finite thinking says that God can work in anybody's life but this person, isn't it? That's the way we think but we will see that something amazing happened in the life of this man called Saul. So now let's move on. We will read the passage ahead of verse 3. Let's read verses 4 to 8. So whoever is an expert who would like to read, can go ahead and do this. Let's speak quicker that we can complete chapter 8 otherwise we will have to carry it on to the next session. Therefore those who were scattered when everywhere preaching the word then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them. And the multitudes with one accord had heeded the things spoken by Philip hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirit crying with a loud voice came out of many who were poses and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed. And there was great joy in that city. Thank you, Zully. As I shared earlier we are introduced to a new person in the church. His name is Philip. Have we read Philip's name anywhere else? I am saying new person because a lot of details we will understand about Philip's life. But is there a mention of his name anywhere else? Do you remember? Yeah, in chapter 6. That's right. So the 7 men who were chosen, Stephen was one of them, so was Philip. So we talked about Stephen a volunteer and now Philip a volunteer also. But what is the impact of the life of this man called as Philip? So there are details about Philip's life in Acts chapter 8. Here what we are seeing is Philip went out to the city of Siberia. So he has gone from Jerusalem to Siberia to what? To preach Christ to the people. That means that he is performing a very evangelistic role to take the gospel to another part of the region. And we notice how when he spoke lots of people responded. So multitudes it says, multitudes responded to the preaching of Philip. And what kind of preaching did he do? What kind of ministry did he do? Very much in line with the kind of ministry that Jesus did because along with the preaching were the miracles. So verse 6 says people were hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. So preaching along with ministering the supernatural power of God. That's how he did ministry. Now what else happened in his ministry? Unclean spirits crying with the loud voice came out of many who were possessed. So deliverance. He laid miracles, deliverance. Last portion is again healing. Even the paralysed labor he is what we see. Now notice verse 8 it says there was great joy in the city. Now think about this. One believer goes to another city to preach that Jesus is the Messiah. It's almost like a picture baby. The picture we get is how crusades were held. But people will go to a particular place and have a crusade meeting or something. Talk about Jesus and healing state place, deliverance state place. All this happened. So when the gospel is preached, when the power of God is devastated powerfully. What happens verse 8? There was great joy in that city. So even for us. But we minister the word of God, the gospel of God. And the power of God. What happens in the lives of people? This is what is supposed to happen that there is great joy. Because God's power is intervening in people's lives. They are being set free. They are being restored. They are being called according to the purpose that God has for them. They are being saved. They are being transformed. So overall in the city, in Samaria, what happened? There was great joy. So as ministers of God, when we go, we step out and we take the gospel out. Let's remember that our ministry can be like the ministry of Philip. So powerful that it actually brings transformation and joy in the city. Now what were the reactions of the people in the city of Samaria? Let's look at that. We will specifically look at the reaction of a sorcerer by the name of Simon. So let's read from verse 9 to verse 13 and then we will continue from there. Who would like to read this passage? Yeah, Rosalind, please go ahead. Verse 9. But there was a certain man called Simon who previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great to whom they all gave heed from the least to the greatest sorcery of all time. Okay Rosalind, sorry to interrupt you.  Maybe it's the correction. So I would need to request another person to read it. Jefina, could you please read? Acts chapter 8 verse 9. But there was a certain man called Simon who previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great to whom they gave all heed from the least to the greatest saying this man is the great power of God and they heeded him because he had astonished them with his sorceries for a long time. But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ both men and women were baptized then Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized he continued with Philip and was amazed seeing the miracles and signs which were done. Okay, so something very very interesting for us to do. There is a man, it's a man here and what is the description about this man? He was called as the great power of God and we know that he is a sorcerer. Simon who previously practiced sorcery in the city so he practiced sorcery and he's called as the great power of God so which tells us that he must have done some supernatural works that's what people are looking at him as the great power of God and what is his response to the ministry of Philip? We are told that Philip preached about the kingdom of God people believed, people were baptized Simon also believed that means that the supernatural through the life of Philip or the ministry of Philip must have been very real. Think about it because there is a man who has moved in the occult in a very powerful way and he is listening or witnessing the ministry of Philip how could such a man be amazed to see what is going on unless what is going on is greater than what he has experienced of the spiritual realm. So something for us to think about we said that Philip is just a volunteer he has come to sub-area to preach the gospel but with mighty sides and vandals there is a steeped in the church there is a Philip in the church what a church isn't it? That even a sorcerer he believed it says verse 13 Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized he continued with Philip had was amazed seeing the miracles at sides which were done so the reality of the supernatural in the times of the early church is something to be noted because unless the miracles were authentic the miracles were distinct or they stood out above the people a sorcerer will never be amazed isn't it? because he is being called as the power of God by the other people but if Simon the sorcerer is surely the supernatural would have been demonstrated incredibly in the city of sub-area and lot of people believed they were baptized so they became followers of Jesus so Simon the sorcerer also became a follower of Jesus what else is happening in the city of sub-area let's read let's go from verse 14 and read till verse 25 I would request Zellie to please go ahead and read is that okay? Zellie could you? Now when Apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent Peter and John to them who when they had come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit for as he had fallen upon none of them they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit and when Simon saw that through the laying of the Apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given he offered them money saying give me this power also that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit but Peter said to him your money perished with you because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money you have neither part nor portion in this matter for your heart is not right in the sight of God repent therefore of this your wickedness and pray God if perhaps perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you for for I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bond by iniquity then Simon and certain said pray to the Lord for me that none of the things which you have spoken may come upon me so when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord they returned to Jerusalem in many villages of some of Samaritans sure thank you so much Jazali we can look at the life of Simon these verses but also before we go to Simon's life look at how the leadership of Jerusalem functions so that is a new city where people are accepted Christ don't you think they should just be happy with that but they send out Peter and John to do what to go and minister the baptism with the Holy Spirit so the baptism in the Holy Spirit is an important next step after accepting Christ as far as the early church leaders are concerned so this is a pattern everywhere first they will go preach the gospel people will believe they will repent they will be baptized they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit they will be taught about it and they will be prayed for so that they may receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit and when Peter and John were sent to the Samaritans they laid hands on them and the people received the Holy Spirit now notice Simon saw it says it was 18 the lay on of the apostles hands and he offered them money so what we must understand here is when the apostles laid hands there was a baptism in the Holy Spirit but then there could have been some supernatural manifestations isn't it that is the reason Simon actually noticed something and he offered money for that so our thinking is that by the lay on of the hands there were supernatural manifestations that's the point so why should Simon offer money unless something supernatural took place by the lay on of hands maybe the gifts of the Holy Spirit were manifested which he noticed and was amazed by and he offers money to the apostles he says give me this power also that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit so you see he is making the power of God very transactional I'll give you this you give me that but this comment really upset Peter and he says let your money perish with you because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money we can't buy the power of God we can't buy the work of the Holy Spirit it is like this honoring God isn't it we think like this that we can give something to get what the Holy Spirit is doing so Peter calls up to repent it says you must repent of your wickedness perhaps God may forgive you but also verse 23 is very interesting because we are told that Peter rebukes and says you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by equity so it shows us that Simon being the believer was caught up in the works of the flesh what is that bitterness, equity and Peter again by the Holy Spirit remember Peter earlier analyzed and sapphira he could dessert that I was desserting about Simon the sorcerer and he said it's not right the way your heart is you may be a believer but your heart is not right before the Lord and he actually rebukes him so let's just stop here we will pray it close and then we will continue on to the rebaving of Philippe's ministry in the next class so I just want to request Sabar to please go ahead and pray J. Heavenly Father we come to under the name of Jesus we thank you for this day we thank you for the class that we had we thank you for the power and the authority that you have given us Jesus we thank you for the Holy Spirit we thank you for baptizing us filling us with the Holy Spirit for an amazing time we are living in Jesus where we have the revelation of the cross the revelation of the Holy Spirit God I just pray that as we are learning this truth will the passion for your temple the passion for your kingdom the passion for us to mightily over the places where the people have lost it will keep growing in our house and not only in the book of Acts but even us ourselves will move in the mighty presence of God we will move in the authority of God we will move in your power and house Stephen was defined as a man of full of faith and power Jesus and our life will be defined like that our testimony will be like that help us to have such boldness and passion and desire for your kingdom we give you all the glory and honor Jesus name of Jesus Thank you Jafina class I am really sorry I don't know why I always have a cold once I put on these edibles I don't know if it has to do something with the pressure that is causing here but my apologies for all the slippers different interruptions but I hope it won't take away from what we are learning regarding God and his power so please do pray for me I really trust that I would that I will be well from this whole situation in the coming classes thank you so much for your patience and adjusting God bless you all let's wrap up for now and we'll see each other in the next class God bless you


from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE. Covering IBM Think 2018, brought to you by IBM. We're back, IBM Think 2018. This is theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. My name is Dave Vellante and I'm here with my co-host, Peter Burris, we're talking all things cloud, AI, blockchain, quantum, information management, information architectures. And we're here going to talk about resiliency, Pat Corcoran is the IBM Business Resiliency Global Strategy Executive and Dr. Larry Ponemann is here, he's the head of the Ponemann Institute. Gentlemen, welcome to theCUBE. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, Pat, set it up for us. What's going on here at Think Generally? And specifically talk about business resiliency and what it means. Well, I think at Think this year, we're resiliency, we're teamed up with security because a lot of synergy. When you look at resiliency, when you want to be adaptable, flexible, companies want to be able to adjust the situations quickly. The environment's changed. In the past, when you looked at recovering resiliency, people thought about natural disasters. But now, this past year, it's been on longer, but the past year, we've all seen a lot of major cyber events. So now, resiliency has taken out a different view, different approach, because it's not just a risk of a hardware problem or a site going down. Now we've got to address risk from the cyber and it's a totally different risk. So at this conference, we've teamed up with security and IBM to try to present a integrated package, integrated approach. And we're also working with Larry, sharing some results from a study from last year about the cost of data breach and the importance of business continuity to cyber attacks. Because most people today, they're not ready. They might look at protect, they might look at detect, but they don't know how to recover from a cyber. And that's what we're addressing here today. So Larry, we're going to get into the study, but what's the Ponemon Institute? Why did you start it almost 20 years ago? Give us the background there. So Ponemon Institute is a research company and we're linearly focused on cyber security, data protection, privacy, and other related topics. The reason why we started the institute, my background is varied intelligence and security over a very long period of time. I had to admit it, but over 45 years of experience. And the bottom line is we saw a real need for information. The decision makers needed to know what are the really significant issues of privacy or information security that could affect their organization. And we're very lucky. We chose an industry that was interesting and profitable and every day there's a new issue. So you never run out of research ideas. Amazing, I mean the last 12 months, it seems like this is a game of escalation. Oh, it's crazy. You put on the TV and CNBC and all of a sudden there's every board of director from a credit bureau on there, a big word, breach across the bottom. That's just a nightmare, right? But every day there's something in the news. And to your point Pat, it just seems to be getting more and more costly to businesses. It is more costly. And I think now when you look at the annual reports, when I go visit a customer, I like to read their annual reports. And the CEO and the CFO put down what risk are they concerned about? Almost every annual report now has cyber attacks in there because they have to be aware of it. And it's gotten so bad now. But like you said, the challenge is a hacker only has to be successful once. Companies have to be successful 100,000, millions of times stopping these people from getting in. And that's what we're trying to help them stop. Black hats to growth business. Well, it's a game for them, it is a game. And they're good at it, but we have to be better. And that's the harder challenge. But virtually every company has been breached. It's like the NBA. I don't think any team has ever gone undefeated in the NBA, despite your hope of the Warriors. Good game. Good game. It can't be done. So there, let's get into the study. And you've done this for a number of years. You've seen the patterns. What do we need to know? Yeah, we know that the cost of a data breach is very significant. You know, you basically talk to CEOs and board members and you say, what's the cost of a data breach? And they get that glazy-eyed look like, how do we know? But we've been trying to benchmark and figure out what that true cost is. And it could be millions, tens of millions of dollars in an organization just recovering from a major data breach, let alone you lose customer trust and there are huge long-term consequences. Our cost of data breach study sponsored by IBM has done this analysis globally and now we do it in 13 countries and this current year is going to be 15 countries. We're adding two new countries. And the issues, even though there are cultural and differences in geolocation differences, companies are companies. And all companies around the world are dealing with this phenomenon. And as Pat said, bad guys are getting worse or better if you're on the side of evil. And their ability to get data and use data against organizations and it creates a huge challenge for organizations. That's why actually you need IBM. You need the right technology and you need to write tools, the right personnel to get the job done right. So, I mean, at the simplest level, the cost of a breach seems like it would be a function of the probability of that breach times its impact. Right, yeah. And so what are you seeing in terms of those variables? Are breaches happening more often? Is the business impact great? Are they both sort of proportional or what's the relationship? Yeah, the cost is climbing globally. What we find is that organizations are ill-prepared to deal with these problems. We also know that a lot of organizations don't have the internal talent, the people they need to be able to identify and respond to these problems quickly. Our findings show that organizations that are using leading edge technologies and involve their BCM, the business continuity people, are much more likely to have a successful outcome. But it's a mess right now, honestly. And there isn't an organization out there that isn't not subject to a major data breach. Pat, when you talk to clients, to Larry's point, you ask them, do you know what the cost of a breach is? The vast majority presumably don't. Do you help them sort of quantify that, look at the business impact? We can, and that's a great point. They don't know, and they haven't looked at it. One of the challenges is, in many cases, the security arm, the recovery arm, and the continuity arm, more people, they're all fragmented. They're run by different groups within a company. So we want to work with companies to bring them together. And so we can do a business impact analysis to look at what types of risk are you most concerned about, how vulnerable are you to those risks, and what would be the impacts, tangible and intangible. Because you're brand, you look at some of the names that have been in the paper. You're in the paper and you're there for day after day because you're down for weeks. Your brand is being impacted. So that's an intangible cost, but it's a significant cost. So we do help you with an assessment. So Larry, Dave mentioned that you've done this for multiple years. Last year's studies showed that the improvements on time to identify and time to contain was about 5% over what had been a previous year. It's still not great, but it's getting better. Are we seeing this kind of 5% per year slog and what do we need to do to start accelerating the rate of improvement? Right, so the word slog is appropriate. You know, it's a slow moving train and you get organizations to make a small improvement and that leads to, in the long term, it's a really good outcome. But unfortunately, it could go the other way. The bad guys are getting very talented and so they'll see opportunities, windows to exploit organizations. And they want to hide their, they don't want the world to know that they've committed a crime. So the time to identify and time to contain may kind of move in the opposite direction. But in general, we are seeing small improvement. One way that organizations are improving is they're involving other experts, other teams. So it's no longer just an IT security problem or a compliance issue. It's more than that. As Pat mentioned, it's a brand issue and bringing other people into the process has created greater efficiencies. So I mean, the business people went to. This is an IT issue. This is a business issue. Well, we've done some work on this and thinking about what's the right regime for cybersecurity and it's not just the CISO problem or an IT problem. But what percent, well first of all, first question, what percent of organizations, and I'm not just talking about large organizations, think about your client base. What percent actually look at cyber as a board level issue? Obviously, RBC today, Verizon, yes, it's a board level for those high profile companies but across the board, is it 100%? Not even close. You just did a recent study, I think they looked at that, right? Yeah, we basically saw board level involvement. Do you view something as strategic or simply tactical? It's about 39% on the side of, yeah, we do. And then the remainder, they do not. And that's an inflated number because when you ask people on a survey, they have a halo effect. They're more like this, oh, sure we do that. Sure we get our board and CEOs involved. It's again, that slog word, it's a slow moving train, but we're seeing more and more boards getting involved. Also it helps are some of the new regulations that are coming down the pipe or there's a new regulation in New York State. It requires the boards of directors to sign off that they have had conversations with the CISO and they've identified the appropriate risk issues. So it's definitely moving in the right direction but it's slow. So we had, I had a conversation with a chief privacy officer client a couple months ago. And she told me that they had calculated what would have happened with the Equifax, who each, if it had been subject to the fines that are going to go into effect over in Europe. Right. And she said that Equifax would have been hit with $160 billion, with a B, dollar fine. Wow. Is that the type of exposure that we're really talking about here for companies that are not doing a good job, especially given some of the new regulations on the horizon? Well, absolutely. Just today there was this issue with Facebook. You probably were following that issue, where Facebook released. Oh, really? Who's Facebook? I don't know. They're a small social media company. But basically they've released information, profiles, detailed profiles on individuals. And I think it was like 25 million, somewhere in that range. If the GDPR was in effect and it involved European citizens, they would put them out of business. There'd be no way that they could operate in Europe. It would be hundreds of billions of dollars. So it could be devastating and compliance is on the move. It's, there's no question that Europe is going to be very tough on your U.S. companies that are not compliant with their law. One of the things that Peter and I learned when we started talking to CISOs and boards of directors about this was that part of their business resiliency strategy was response. That they sort of knew they were going to get hacked. They've been hacked. Instead of telling the board, no, we've got it all covered. He said, listen, this has happened. It's going to happen again. One more transparent. We're going to focus not only on keeping the bad guys out, but how we can respond. Containment. Better. Containment and response in a more productive manner. Does that, how does that fit into your sort of strategy? I'll say it from a recovery. When you talk about respond, it's recovery. And one, I think you have to look at the company. We have to help companies and they have to look at across the total enterprise. Cause when he spoke, I call it a domino effect. When you get hacked or when you get some risk impacts your business, it creates another risk. It's a domino effect. And a lot of companies don't look at it that way. They look at why we get hacked. What does that mean? We have to, they have to sit down and really understand what it means to the business. And what could it, what could happen after? What could it create? And there's a lot of unknowns there. We're gaining a lot more knowledge here, but you have really had to sit down and look at it. So the executive committee team at the board level, they have to be committed to this and sponsored to it. From a resilience recovery standpoint, they haven't looked at it as, as, as strong as they should have in the past. But I think this past year, because executives are being held accountable, they're losing their jobs, going to jail. And so now they're, they're coming out asking for a guidance. They're asking for help. And so the recovery piece, we're looking at new ways of trying to protect, find ways to protect your data. And that, when that data is protected, can we figure out when, you know, is something changed? Like when a hacker gets in, they make a change. They, they go in it through your configuration information. Well, no one looked at that typically. So we're trying to find ways to monitor and track, detect these things when they happen, so that we can then figure out how far back you can go back in the data. Cause the data wasn't corrupted today, yesterday, five months ago. It's not an easy solution. But if you, they've got to be committed, they've got to sit down, we've got to work together to help them figure out the best approach. And there's not one answer. Larry, notice you haven't thrown out the fear metric. You see this a lot, which is, the average cost of a data breach is 2.56783 million per second. Or, you know, whatever it is. Now, is that because you don't believe in that? And you, every situation is different. It depends on your market value, what type of data, et cetera, et cetera. Or is it because it's just too hard to actually quantify? I wonder if you could comment. Well, we actually do, some of our research, we attempt to quantify, we use activity-based costing. I don't, I only tell my friends this, but actually I'm the CPA and a PhD in accounting. So I know accounting pretty well. And we use an accounting method to try to figure out what the total cost is. It's not a perfect measure, but it basically is fairly objective and it's the best that exists. Not to sound the ego-tistical, but I think we're the best in that narrow space of predicting cost. But it is, it is difficult because it does depend on a lot of variables. And a lot of organizations don't necessarily understand all of the different ways that a bad event, a negative, a significant breach could affect the bottom line. But we talk to kinds and organizations about it. We do board retreats, I was telling Pat, it seems pretty popular that the board wants to get a newfound religion in privacy and security after they experience a disaster. And we work with them to try to educate them on these risk issues that Pat was referring to before. But it's an interesting time to be in this business. Lots of change. Well, in the context of data breaches, I mean, you've pointed this out a lot, Peter, is people don't really have an understanding of the value of their data. There's no, except that accounting, there's no gap for data. Right. In those circumstances, there's a huge information asymmetry. The bad guys know how valuable your data is. You don't. It's a new currency. If you think about currency, data is a currency for people, for companies. And when you lose it, it's one of your most, you say after your people, your currencies are both critical assets. We say the difference between business and digital business is data. Otherwise, it's the same thing. Digital business organizes, treats its data as an asset. But it is a problem that the bad guys are willing to invest more money, more time, more innovation into attacking because they seem to have a better understanding of what the real value of data is than the good guys. And that's a problem. It's a huge problem. You know, we see all of our trade secrets, for example, economic espionage is on the rise. The nation states, they're enjoying this. It's so easy for them to collect incredibly valuable information that we don't even know that it's out in the hands of a country. It's not even a competitor, it's worse than that. But things are, fortunately, there's a lot of fun. There's a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But there are really great things going on in terms of inventing new security controls. That's where I turn to IBM, maybe, when I get to deal with these issues. So if I can ask one last question. Larry, what do we need to do to get people to acknowledge and properly place the value of their data? Anything we can do in the next six months? Yeah, I think really the bottom line is you need to get your senior executives to see this as a strategic, not just a tactical issue. And they could start immediately. I think doing this study for an organization, nothing we can do, but others can do this very well, to try to show the economic impact to an organization, especially one that's undergoing a digital transformation. And that's, as you mentioned, that's where the value of an information asset is just so incredibly high. And then you look at a company like that, a social media company like a Facebook. And if you basically said, you can't alone know, you should know. So there are examples that you can turn to to show the value of the data asset. It's not protected very well, but the consequences, downside consequences. Well, we got to wrap it up. We talked about sort of Facebook, peripherally, but the weaponization of social media is becoming a huge, huge problem that's certainly affected by most accounts in the last election 2020 is going to be all about. Facebook's more influential than the UN. And even though we're here talking about business, everybody in business is on social media, increasingly, and that's another way in. It is. Give you the last word. Well, you know, Larry said the data is critical, and I think it starts at the executive level. They have to understand the value. And we do this, I just presented about, we just, we talk about an assessment because how do you get their attention? You don't want their attention once you get in the headlines. You want to help demonstrate to them there's a value here. So using the study that Larry did with us, using some assessments that tries to say, here's where you're mature and here's where you're not.  To help people demonstrate the importance of this and demonstrate the risk and vulnerabilities in it. I think that's where people have to, they have to raise, elevate that discussion and make people understand the real business impact. All right, working through day two here, IBM Think 2017, you're watching theCUBE. Dave Vellante for Peter Burris. Check out siliconangle.com for all the news. Thecube.net is where you find these videos and wikibon.com for the research. Pat and Larry, thanks very much for coming on. Thank you. All right, keep it right there. We're back with our next guest right after this short break.