So, the next part of this talk is basically going to focus on, you know, how is SOI actually come about? We have kind of seen one aspect of it so far, are there any other aspects that drive this, right? The way businesses have changed themselves fundamentally, for example, and then what is SOI? Let us take a look at that. So, what triggers change, right? Three times you are in a situation where a major paradigmatic shift takes place, you know, you went from procedural to object oriented, you went from monolithic to distributed, you know, those kinds of issues, they are all major shifts or changes that have taken place in the way that we do things, right? So, there are three things that, at least three things in my mind that trigger change, right? One is that there is something happening on the side out there that is strangely interesting to me as a business, right? So, example could be that I am a bookstore, I sell books, but the development of the internet is going to make me change the way that I sell books, right? I have had a bunch of stores across the country and these stores are really nice, they have coffee shops in them, you can go sit and read books and buy books and so on, but my sales have been flat in all these bookstores, right? The internet is taking off, people are all using the internet, so maybe can I take advantage of this new medium that people are talking about in order to accelerate my growth, increase sales, whatever, right? So, advancements in a technology that is parallel to what you are actually doing, right? A bookstore has nothing to do with the internet specifically, but today they are kind of linked so intricably that we can't even think about, well, we can, but a lot of people don't think about buying books by going to a store, they just go to Amazon and they go to whatever and buy books from there, right? So, that's one aspect of it. The other thing is that the business needs themselves are changing, it's becoming, we've come to a situation where, one, we have to be very, very agile as businesses, no matter how big you are, this notion of agility is being much talked about, is being much doubted, right? You have to be agile, you have to be able to respond to change very quickly, there's a lot of competition out there, every time the competition releases something, you have to release two new features for every feature they release and for every one of the two new features you release, they release four new features and it's just, this thing is happening all the time. So, there's one, the business, the pace of business is changed, right? I think we understand that and the other thing that is happening is that businesses are becoming more collaborative in nature. It's not possible for one business to do everything, no matter how big you are, right? eBay and Amazon are really big, forget eBay, let's take Amazon, Amazon is quite big, right? As a company, I don't know what its exact turnover is, but should be in several billions of dollars, is what I expect, right? But Amazon cannot control a logistics company like FedEx or UPS, it would be foolish to, for Amazon to buy a logistics company, but Amazon desperately needs logistics, everything that people buy has to be shipped to them, it's a physical thing eventually, right?  How will it come to me? Some courier service is now going to get involved, now will Amazon buy the courier service? Probably not, it's a waste of time to own and maintain and operate a courier service, let the courier service do its job, I will hire the courier service in other words, right? As a company, so it means I have to collaborate with this courier service, wherever that may be located, right? Same thing is true for credit card company, so will Amazon own a financing institution? No, no way, right? Visa is a financing institution, master card is a financing institution, I'll go there, let them do the credit card processing handling for me, right? I will use them, so I'm going to collaborate with yet another person, so things are becoming much more collaborative in nature, this is not the way businesses were functioning 20 years ago, businesses are fairly self-contained, the large ones at least, but it's not true anymore, so that's what I mean by changing business needs, right? Finally, when we look at these two things, the first two bullets out here, I will realize that my current technologies are not going to cut it at some point in time, right? A quick example would be that I'm, well actually let's go to the next slide, that's stealing the thunder for my next slide. So let's take the first one of, first of these three bullets, right? So on, we said that advancements in a parallel but related technology can drive a change, what do we mean by that? Right, take a look at connectivity or networking, communication infrastructure that has existed over the last 10 years. The change in this that has happened over the last 10 years, right? Initially, we saw that, initially we had the lands, so we had a very constrained operating space, we had the local area networks within companies, information availability was very local, right? It was maybe within an enterprise boundary, the enterprise itself possibly was physically located at one place, it wasn't spread all over the place, maybe a few offices here and there, business processes were definitely very local, right? It, the business process were confined to my own company, so if I did order management, I would do the end-all of order management myself, right? Now, as things changed, we went to internets but wide area networks, it's still internets within the enterprise boundary logically, but they're wide area networks. Now, I opened offices in Delhi, in Boston and whatever, three or four cities, Minsk in Russia and so on, but they're all still belonging to my company, and business process flowed in between this, but things started getting a little more global in nature, right? That was the next step. The internet kind of really took off somewhere at this point, you know it has been existing long before that. Then the next logical step was what we talked about just before this, which was businesses became much more global in nature, much more collaborative in nature, information availability was global, so I can sit here and for example, access from a research perspective, I can access all the research papers that are published anywhere in the world. I don't actually have to be present at these conferences, right, physically, everything's available online, the e-versions of IEEE and ACM and all of these research organizations exist, and I can sit here in my office and I can access all the papers. That was not true even 10 years ago, right? Even 10 years ago, I had to wait for the hard copy, paper copies for it to arrive by mail, which often took six months to show up after the conference was over. It's not true today, conference is over, the next day I'm able to access all these papers over the web, right? So, same thing with business process, they started becoming more global because of the collaborative nature of business, and my business process itself, which was previously confined to my enterprise boundary, crossed that and started hitting other enterprises as well along the way. So, just my order fulfillment process within a company like Amazon will probably hit my own company first, which is inventory, right, that I maintain. Inventory of what I have I maintain, right? Once I have the inventory, I go to credit verification, somebody else does it, I have crossed my enterprise boundary already, right? Credit verification checks comes back to be positive, I have to contact logistics, have them ship it, tell them which warehouse to go to and pick up the item that somebody has bought and deliver it to a particular shipping address. Get confirmation that you have shipped it and they have received it, send that confirmation back to me, right? That is my order fulfillment process within Amazon today. It's clearly crossing three or four enterprises already, right? And they are much more complex ones which involve manufacturing and so on at this point in time. So, a lot of on demand manufacturing that is going on today, right? Which will involve procurement of raw material and so on. So, the point that is being made is that business processes are much more global in nature, right? Along with this, so I'm going to use the internet, right? For this, because it seems like I don't want to be keeping private networks, it doesn't make sense because that was the initial, initially that's what people were doing, right? So if I collaborated with FedEx and if I collaborated with somebody, I would have a VPN set up between these people. It would be a secure private network for which I transacted business, right? But that's too expensive to do, right? Every time I change a vendor, I tell down a node of my private network, I have to bring another connection to a new vendor. They're really painful things, but the internet is ubiquitous. Everybody is connected to the internet. So let me use the internet for business, right? Great. But there is a problem, right? The problem is that the current software that I have is not built to take advantage of the internet or is going to suffer problems when it runs over the internet. Classic problem is one of latency, right? Now, if I operate a J2EE application or a Corba application or whatever application, Tuxedo application, within my enterprise boundary, it is built to run on the LAN where the latency is of the order of a few milliseconds at most. Even a WAN where the latency maybe of the order of maybe 50, 60, 70, 80 milliseconds. On the internet, what is the latency? It could be anything. It's unbounded. The internet actually crosses several different ISPs. It all depends on how the ISPs are performing, how much load there is on the internet at any given point in time. This is not a controlled network. Remember, it's a public network, right? So I have no guarantee of what the latency is going to look like. In the best case scenario, maybe I'll get a few hundred milliseconds, which is fine, right? So this means that my application, for example, that was built to run in a synchronous request reply manner is not going to work very well. I cannot do synchronous request reply over the internet because if I send a request, every request is going to time off unless I set my time-out value to be in the order of several seconds, which is not the right thing to be done, right? So the inescapable, as I call them, of the internet will force to change the kinds of infrastructure that I have to work over this new medium, if you will. Right? So I have today's technology counter for this. My answer is no. Otherwise, there won't be anything else to do, right? Then there are several other issues. We don't have to go through these seven things specifically, but there's several issues. In a VPN, I probably have gigabit connectivity, not true on the internet because my connection to the ISP is a choke point and there's going to be limited connectivity. So I can't push, for example, huge amounts of GIF files, just in that, as part of my B2B process, I probably have to change my applications to work with textual data rather than with binary data. All of these issues come into play, right? So the next one, businesses have changed. We already talked about this notion of agility, right? Everybody today is talking, every CIO that you talk to today will talk about agility. This is the hot buzzword among CIOs today. Six months ago, I attended a CIO's meet at the Computer Society of India hosts. I think various places, I'm not sure, but certainly there was one in Bombay six months ago and there were like about 75 CIOs of various companies in India would come there. Almost every one of them was talking about this notion of, I am being forced by the business to become more agile. So the CIO is not in a position where they can say, some part of the business comes and asks for some features, they can't say, okay, hold on and wait for a while. I'll get you up to speed on this. No, none of them work, right? The CIO actually has to be a business enabler and they have to be leading the way the business goes. Not, they cannot be behind the rest of the business, right? So this is the notion of agility. Basically, agility is nothing but how fast can it change the software? That's all there is to it, right? If I will give a new set of requirements or if I'm going to be doing a new service, so this is a classic problem in telecom today. So take these cell phone providers. Every few months, you are getting new features on your cell phone, right? Call forwarding this thing, that thing, then they'll give video on it, then you can watch a cricket match on it. Something or the other is coming out on these cell phones all the time, something new, right? Which means the software has to be changing constantly to allow all these things to happen. It is no human feeding you cricket match, this thing, right? So this is a real issue and a survey shows that most CIOs are not very well prepared to deal with this, with the current infrastructure. Why? Because of two things. One is even though the object orientation was supposed to have enabled a lot of reuse, the fact that we have to integrate these different components and write a lot of glue core has caused the problem. It has in fact hampered reuse. And if you take a look at, this is another survey that would be interesting to conduct, right? How much reuse are you actually doing in any applications that you're building today? As an ITR. What percentage of an application is from reuse? What percentage have you built newly? The answer turns out to be actually startlingly bad, right? People are talking about a maximum of between 11 and 20% application being reused, 80% being built from scratch every time. In spite of the fact that object orientation and component oriented software was supposed to have alleviated this problem. It has not.  So rather than try to integrate software that is new to me and learn new APIs, I'll build my own stuff. It's the standard answer that you'll get back from a lot of engineers, right? So what we really want to be doing instead of this is we want to be able to have software be running wherever it is running, right? And coordinate the running services that are provided by these different providers, as opposed to getting the software in houses components and sitting and integrating them ourselves. That's the point that I'm trying to make here, right? So integrating rather than coordinating. So what's broken in the current software? So we have this notion of tight coupling, right? Which is really what we don't want. What I mean by tight coupling would be if I use a particular component, for example, the API of that component, there is no standard for it. Let's say there's a PO component in a company, right?  It has some specific vendor proprietary API, right? I integrate it and now I'm tightly coupled to this particular component because I've written to a very specific API on this component. What I really want to be doing is to give a general description of what I want the PO to look like, right? What do you require of a purchase order functionality? It has to have some line items. It has to have some cost, right? You will be running across this all the time. And then I say that any component that satisfies these requirements call it at runtime, right? I don't want to hardwire this which tightly couples me to it, right? Into my application. This is one example of tight coupling. Therefore, if you tightly calculate these applications don't become adaptive in nature, right? So in other words, if I want a different vendors purchase order component, I now have to bring the new component in house, test it, learn the API, put out all the blue code that I've written earlier to call the old component and rewrite code to call the new component, right? That's not adaptive software, right? The human is getting involved in the loop all the time. We don't want that. As far as possible, what we want is, suppose I am using the service of a particular vendor, right? The service is something that is running. Let's say a software that is running somewhere and I'm calling this person through, so standardized API, right? A standard way of discovering its capability and calling it. And if that vendor goes away, let's say they go out of business and there's a new vendor that comes up who provides similar functionality. I should be able to discover that and use it without having to write a whole new code. That's what it comes down to, right? That's adaptiveness. Sir, here business process is re-engineering in the standardization, we have seen in the government that even at the national wide project, if we go to the states, the states requirements are a bit different. They won't want to know what we're doing. So we have to change the whole lot of processes and to make the application learn better. Right, that's true. So I think that's one of the points that I've tried to make here is that what we want in this case is we want the business process not to be embedded, but we want it to be externalized, right? That's one aspect of it, is that we want business processes to be explicitly described in some notation that captures this that is analyst friendly as opposed to having to need a whole army of software engineers to change the business process every time. If it is embedded or built into the rest of the software, there would be an issue with this. Sir, what can we do with the performance of it? I think the problem is for the particular application. For the generalization. So it needs to couple it directly. Yes, I agree with that. I think the more specialized you make a certain application the more performance you can actually bring out of it. Right, so it's like saying, I'll write high level code versus assembly code. It's a very similar notion, right? Assembly code is written for a specific processor in mind. Remember, as opposed to writing code in Java or C or C++. So if I write code for a specific processor, I'm likely to do a really good job of it compared to a compiler who will generally be able to translate a whole lot of things for any processor. So if I have a C compiler on Spark systems, I have a C compiler on Pentium systems, I have a C compiler on whatever the Mac processor has got. Itanium and so on and so forth, right? Now, so it's the same notion. So if I make it very general in nature, you may suffer a performance hit. That's the intuitive notion that you will suffer a performance hit on us, right? We have to see how to address that. Yes, that is an issue, right? In fact, that is one of the single biggest issues that people are complaining about for web services today. Okay, so we'll go pretty quickly. Close not necessarily, but so if you use open systems, standard-based systems, it's okay. So the closed issue may or may not come into play. Right, so the one issue that we do have is that this level of IT abstraction that I call. What is the level of IT abstraction? Is that, so suppose there's a marketing, the chief marketing officer comes to the CIO and says, hey, I want to launch a new promotion campaign. These are the kind of services that we want to provide as part of the new promotion campaign. So please change your software to launch this promotion campaign. Now the CIO is thinking in terms of, I have portal, I have a billing application, I have some inventory application, I have that application, I have this application. He doesn't talk in terms of this notion of services that the company wants to offer. The company wants to offer telecom services. I want to offer call reading to my customers. I want to offer voice mailbox to my customers. I want to offer any kind of services, video on demand, ringtone downloading, whatever to my customers. But the CIO is talking a whole different language. He's talking of some application I have, it has some interfaces. Now the rest of the company cannot understand what the heck this application is and what, they don't even care about it, right? So the question is, can we bridge this gap somehow? Can we talk about the notion of services all through right from the business executives in the company through to the actual software that is executing somewhere on the network? So that's what I mean by a level of IT abstraction. It's a very different language that is talked by the CIO and the IT people versus the CXOs and the rest of the businesses in the company. So here's my five point conjecture, having seen all this. And if you, this is a place where we can have a small discussion if you will. Because I think these are again points that I have made having looked at whatever I have seen so far, right? So this, I don't think there's too much doubt about. Businesses have become more global and have become more collaborative in nature, right? There's no question about that. The internet as a medium for doing business is here to stay. We are not gonna have private networks all over the place anymore. So the age of the VPN still exists if you want highly secure, highly performance guaranteed, no variability in my connectivity type of scenarios, you will have a VPN, no problem. But how many people can afford that is the question, right? The internet is ubiquitous. It is connected to everybody out there. So if I want to collaborate with somebody in Timbuktu, it's very likely that that person has an internet connection. To set up a VPN to this person will probably take you months and you may not have months, right? So that's one point. Then businesses have come to the point where they are going to push this notion of flexibility to its limit. And this is only going to get worse and worse. It's not gonna get any better for us, right? It's time that we quit complaining about how I have to develop so many features in such a short time and try to figure out ways to solve this, right? So whatever existing technologies and methods that we have today, business automation, built with distributed object infrastructures and so on are not going to be able to keep pace with these four, these three other points that we have made earlier, right? So there is a problem there. And finally, the cost of an own and operate approach is not scalable, absolutely not scalable. I will not be able to build and forget build. I will not be able to own and run every piece of software that I will possibly need eventually. And we have to move to a model in which there is sharing of software services amongst multiple consumers, thereby amortizing the costs of some of these expensive service offerings amongst many people. We have to do that. There's no choice, right? And it's not just the cost, but it's also the headache of running everything yourself, right? So this is what service orientation is all about. These challenges that we have just described, right? It is about emphasizing the notion of loose coupling, right? We don't want to be tightly coupled to a specific API, to a specific vendor, to a specific piece of software, to a specific package, right? We want to be loosely coupled. We want to have the freedom to move from component to component. We want to have the freedom to move from vendor to vendor, eventually, right? So it results in flexible business automation, lower cost of maintenance. And it solves those three issues that we talked about earlier, cost of operation and maintenance, and lower time to market. So that we'll see how, but this is the emphasis, right? So web services are nothing but an instantiation of some of the concepts that service orientation puts into play. Service orientation is a concept, right? So it's a way of building applications. It's an architectural style, if you will. So web services give you a specific API to try and realize that. So it's an instantiation. It's something concrete that you can get your hands on. Additionally, web services are built to take advantage of the internet, specifically internet protocols, right? HTTP, XML, things like that. Okay, so what are services? If we think about service oriented architecture as being architectural style that drives loose coupling, now we have to talk about it's service oriented, so what is a service? So first of all, it's like an interface, right? You think of interfaces in object oriented terms. Interfaces as opposed to the implementation, right? So a service is like an interface, an abstract view of a program, right? It's how can I talk to this program, really? What does it do for me, right? It could be an abstract view of data also. So there could be a data service which actually abstracts a database and gives you data services, things like that. And this is defined in terms of five things, right? So it's defined in terms of what does it do functionality? So an interface will actually describe how can you talk to it only in object oriented terms, right? So if you take a look at a Java interface, what does it say? It just says here are methods within a class. The class is named so and so. Each method is named this. It takes these input parameters and gives you back this output parameter. How do I talk to it? That's what it is. How can it be contacted and invoked? It doesn't describe what it does, unfortunately, right? You have to just gain it from knowing or having some documentation about the class itself, right? So that documentation also should be described as part of the service is what we are saying. What it does? How can it be contacted and invoked, right? Any SLAs it can offer, you know, quality of service guarantees that it can offer. What does it cost? Given this cost of the different levels, gold, silver, bronze type invocations that you can do on this. Now that's one aspect of it. And finally, whatever resources that the service itself needs to execute. This is no concern to the client, but what are the resources the service needs to execute? So different characteristics of services. This is important because eventually this is at the heart of when we say what's a good service versus a bad service, you know, this would be what will be used to measure it finally in some way, right? So it has to have a course-grain interface. What do we mean by that? Course-grain is a larger granularity of the interface. So an example may be the current operations, right? So the create, delete, modify type of operations on larger objects, let's say order. Create an order, right? Or actually fulfill an order. Maybe the example of a service. As opposed to change this particular value, change one more value, get one value, read one value. That's not a service, right? That's what we mean by course-grain. It has a standardized interface, right? All implementations of this, no matter what, will conform to this interface that looks exactly like this. It's the notion of standardized, right? The service is self-contained. There is no dependency of the service on that the client would have to be worried about. There are certainly maybe dependencies in the back end, but the client will not be worried about. There are no visible dependencies. That's what we mean by visible, right?  I call it travel agent. The travel agent has put up a travel reservation service. Travel reservation service, my intern have to contact airlines. It may have to contact car rental agencies and all that. I don't care about that as a client. You contact whomever you want. As long as you are advertising the fact that you will make airline bookings and hotel bookings and car bookings, that's all I care about, right? The service is typically always available to me, right? So this is like a seven by 24 notion. It's there until request come, right? And whenever the request comes, it processes the request and serves it. So the service can be offered with different levels of quality for different people. So it's provisionable in different ways, right? So for example, I may say that I have a set of customers who are paying much more than everybody else. So they have to be given a higher priority. So I'm going to provision the service such that customers who log in with some particular gold rating will receive a higher quality of service than people who log in with other ratings than gold. So it is probably the same service, right? The same service of airline reservations. It's like frequent flyers. So if you're a platinum member of Jet Airways frequent flyer program, right? And if you log in and you make a reservation, it should really be able to treat you like a platinum member automatically. So it's provisionable. The same service of reservation. Everybody is making a airline reservation.  You're still going to get a seat on the plane. The plane is going to go from one place to another. It doesn't matter. But the service quality is different, right? So that's what it means. There is no notion of integration. I don't have to write glue code in order to use this service. I will be able to call it because it is already running somewhere. I don't have to deploy it myself because it is deployed somewhere, right? That's the next point. So no integration as such would be required. I have to certainly call it. No question about that, right? If you don't call it, you're not going to get any results, so. But there is no integration of glue code that would be needed to be written in order to invoke this, right? Now existing services can be combined to create better value. A classic example again is the travel reservation service. Travel agent does what? Basically what they do is they themselves don't run an airline. They don't run a hotel. They don't run a car agency, nothing, right? What they do is they intern contact other service providers and they will club everything into a nice package, add some value to the fact that they're doing both hotel reservations and airline reservations and give you one nice printout that says, okay, here's your flight, here's your hotel, everything. You can just take that and run with it, right? So that's what we mean by value can be created by combining existing services, right? And finally, the quality of service is in some way quantifiable. So in other words, you can say that a response time of the 90th percentile response time of 10 milliseconds or less or half a second or less on some service. What that means is that 90% of the requests that are sent to this service will have a return value in less than so many milliseconds or seconds, right? So it is quantifiable. So what this allows is that because it has a standardized interface, right? All travel reservations do the same thing. Let's face it, right? Every travel agency does the same thing. How they compete is actually and how well they serve you, right? Do, does it require for me to keep calling this travel agent over and over again before I can get it done? Is he very responsive to my needs and will do it and will call me back automatically all the time? This is what differentiates one travel agent from another travel agent. Not the fact that it's likely that everybody will do airline reservations, everybody will do auto reservations, everybody will get your car, whatever, right? So that's a high likelihood. So that's what we mean by standardized interface, but they end up competing on quality of service eventually, right? This is what is readily amenable to a service. If a person is only, if there's only one vendor who's going to provide that then it doesn't become a service for us. It doesn't make sense because they can create whatever proprietary interface they want for it and you have to use them. So there's no choice on that matter. What we want is something that can be provided by multiple vendors. They all provide the same functionality but they compete on quality of service, right? That way there's a standardized interface that can be created for that. Now services are actually offered by providers, right? This is just like anything else that you buy in the market, right? Travel services, whatever other kind of services, even plumbing services for example, right? Different plumbers will advertise themselves saying I'm an electrician, I'm a plumber, I provide this service for you and then that is the offer that they are making, right? And consumers will express intent. Now what am I looking for? I am looking for a service that will create tax returns for me for the financial year, whatever, 2007, 2008 according to some particular tax law. I am a business with so much of turnover. That's my intent. I'm looking for what is the intent that I actually express and then there will have to be some mediator, some middleman who will look at what's out there, what are you asking for and if something out there be able to provide what you're asking for and if so, I will match your request to this person's offer and give that return that service back to you, right? These are what are called matchmaking services, right? So request response is a very particular case in the sense that you already know whom to contact, you already know which service provider it is and you go directly to that service provider and ask for him and come back, right? Now every time you want to accomplish something, let's say you want to go see a cinema, how would you do it? If you want to go see a movie, you will probably do a search for the movie and the area in which you live to say which theaters are running this particular movie, right? That's one way of doing it, right? And then it will come back to the list of theaters that are running show timings, prizes, whatever, availability and based on that, you'll select something and you'll go for it. Another way of doing it is to say, I want to go to this theater only to see this particular movie. If it is running, I'll go there. So I'll first contact that theater and if it is there, I'll go there. So this is the notion of a white pages search. I will go to a specific person first. I know that person's name, give me the phone number of the person. That's a white pages way of finding out services, right? I want a specific service provider. How and where do I contact this person? So first of all, I need some kind of a directory where I advertise the services and where I can find services from, right? Just like you have the notion of a phone directory to find people. You have the notion of a directory to find services. So service directory. This can be organized along many different ways. It can be organized as white pages. It can be organized as yellow pages. It can be organized as something called green pages that we'll see a little later in the course as well, right? But the notion is that there is a place out there, logical place. It's not a physical location. There's a place out there where the service providers can advertise themselves and service consumers can go search and say, I'm looking for the service. Can you find this for me, right? So that's what we mean. So the notion of service orientation is not similar to request reply. So we are not going to send a request and hang out there waiting till we get a reply back. Instead, it is based on message orientation. I send off a message. It may encapsulate a request. It probably doesn't encapsulate a request. And then I'm going to go off and do whatever it is that I have to do till the reply arrives as another message that I will end up processing. There are like two separate one-way messages as opposed to a synchronous request reply, you know, two messages being tied to one another very tightly. That's the notion of message orientation, right? So every service actually advertises what are the messages it can understand? That is my WSDL description in web services, effectively, right? I advertise what are the messages I can understand? So I may be able to understand the message that says, do you have the temperature of a particular city whom I'm going to give to you as the input? Current temperature. It's a weather service that a weather bureau is providing. And that may have many different messages. This may be a temperature message and maybe a rainfall message. You know, what are the chances of rain? It may be different kinds of messages that you can understand. So that's what it... In fact, the advertisement is a set of messages that it is willing to accept, right? And a set of messages that it will return back, right? Clearly, in order to find services, I have to be able to describe services in the first place. So there's an orientation towards description. Now your classic interface, your class, if you will, in object-oriented terms, is also a description. It's a syntactic description, right? Syntactic description of how can I invoke an object of this class? Basically, what are the methods that it has? What are the signatures of the methods, right? Now, a description orientation can go beyond that. Can I describe semantics? Can I even give an English language description of what this service does associated with that? That's a minimum. The more formal descriptions would be something that will use a language called OLS to describe the semantics of the service itself, right? And this description that I put out there has to be machine-processable. In other words, it has to be formal in some way. It has to be structured in some way. Therefore, I need a language to be able to do this description, which is different from the language of the implementation of the service, possible. It's like IDL for Korba, right? IDL is an interface definition language, an interface description language, where I provide a description of what is it that I am able to do for you, and somebody is able to search based on that particular description, right? And finally, we want platform neutrality. It doesn't matter, you know, whether I'm on Windows, whether I'm on this, whether I'm running SAP, doesn't, all of this should not matter eventually. Otherwise, how can I search for services? If the search becomes too specific, then it becomes very painful to do the search. The number of parameters involved in the search become too many, right? So give me a tax service that is running on an SAP platform. Why the heck would I care? It doesn't matter what platforms it runs on. As long as you're able to calculate tax returns, that's all I care about, right? So it should be delivered in some kind of a platform neutral way eventually. So what is required in order to accomplish this? Now, are there any questions about, you know, what is the notion of a service? Because it's kind of important that we get that as we go along, right? So the standard things like, what do we say? If you're going to get and set values, very often when you write a class in object-oriented terms, there are all these get and set methods, if that we write. Those are not service methods. It doesn't make sense to expose it as a service, right? Mainly because of latency issues, right? Typically, the service is going to be hit over a network. There is going to be a significant amount of network latency that is going to come into play. Why would I want to expose an operation that is going to last 10 microseconds, where it will take me 10 to 100 of my milliseconds to actually access this operation? It would make no sense. That is why we want the notion of course-grained standardized descriptions to fit into this notion of a service, one, and that there should be many possible providers of a standardized description. That's critical because then we can actually program in a way that is independent of the specific provider, right? So that gives me the flexibility of changing providers. If there is another service provided tomorrow, that standardized description will continue to work for me. That is the notion, right? So what is required in order to actually accomplish this? You need a way of description, right? You need a way of finding these services, discovery, and how do I select? If it comes back with 100 different providers, how do I specify which service to select in this? Finally, having selected a service, how do I engage with it? Do I negotiate directly with the service provider? All this is being done machine to machine. Remember, at the end of the day, it's not a human-to-machine interaction that is taking place. It's not like I'm sitting there and doing a search in a browser. It comes back. I am making decisions in real time. This decision-making process is coded. It's embedded in some way, in code, right? And there's machine to machine communication that's going on.  So this collaboration should be possible. This travel agent is a classic example, right? I will call the airline reservation service. I will call the hotel reservation service, but I offer a service myself. But I'm going to entree to it that these other independent services collaborate with each other, right? But finally, there has to be an emphasis on semantics. So this is some of the details of description and so on. We don't necessarily have to go through this now, but the key is that it has to be formally stated. All of this description, which is why we use some kind of a structured language to state a description, right? You need a description language of some kind, which is what your web services description language or WSDLS. It is nothing but an XML variant in this particular case. It doesn't have to be, right? It can be something that is unambiguous and formal. That's what we need, right? So discovery and selection is matchmaking, right? So given that there are many services out there which may satisfy this particular description, how do I pick the services that do satisfy this intent that I have expressed as a consumer, right? There are many different architectures for discovery and selection. What we'll study about in a web services context is a directory service called UDDI, which is a standardized specification for web services specifically to be advertised. It finally architecture. So architecture involves, I mean engagement involves many different aspects to it. Can I negotiate the terms of use of the service? Could be one aspect of it. Second aspect of it, what is the protocol that the service actually accepts, right? So maybe the service will accept messages in an email form. This is fine, right? I will send my request through email to this particular service. Maybe the service provider will accept messages only as HTTP messages. So what is the protocol, right? How do I talk to this person? Is something that I need to know. It's like to give an analogy to your day-to-day life, like I have to find the phone number of some provider which is where do I contact the service? Once I contact the service provider, suppose I'm looking for somebody who will deliver flowers in Delhi, I'm sitting here in Bombay, somebody who will deliver flowers in Delhi, right? So I put out this search, some tens of providers comes back. I will finally pick one provider based on some requirements that I've put forward. Then I have to call that provider. The phone number is written. That's the address of where the provider can be contacted, right? Then I call the provider and then I have to know how to talk to this person. What is it, what kind of orders will he take? Will he take orders below 100 rupees? Will he only take orders, 1000 rupees and above? Will he deliver to any part of Delhi? Will he only deliver to some part of Delhi? All this has to now be negotiated and finally I will place an order. Will he take credit cards? We'll have to send him a DD or a check, right? So this is stuff that I, that's a protocol of how do I talk to this person? What are the messages that he will accept? And finally collaboration. We will look into this in much more detail when we study something called business process execution language or BPEL, which is our way of describing collaboration amongst multiple services, tying them together into a workflow or a business process, right? So this is my eventual vision or scenario, right? I will describe my semantics. I'm a client, let's say. I will describe the semantics or whatever it is that I'm looking for, this flower, florist in Delhi, for example, right? Or a travel agent who is going to serve sub-Saharan Africa. I want to make a trip to the desert, something like that, right? So somehow I'm able to discover a provider of this need dynamically, right? I don't know beforehand who is going to provide this but I will do a search, find a provider of this particular need and then I will hook up with him dynamically, understand the protocol that I have to talk to this person, what are the messages he accepts, what are the constraints, et cetera, and then use that service, negotiate the terms of use and then once I started using the service, suppose I'm not satisfied with this person, I have to be able to switch in a very seamless way without changing a whole lot of things, right? That's the notion. Now, our typical comparison point is where we ended our historical perspective, right? So distributed component architectures is where we ended the historical perspective. We said that's the current state of the art and that's the distributed component architecture, right? So that's the current state of the art. So if we just want to do a quick comparison, there the main driver is transparency to the developer. The distribution is hidden, it is made transparent to the developer. So I can access a local object exactly like I would access a remote object. I don't, from a client perspective, I don't even know the difference that I'm accessing object that is local versus remote, right? Because there is something called a stub. Interface, stub, that is a class that is provided in the client side. And it looks like I'm accessing an object that is, which has the same interface as that of the remote object. So that's the objective there. And so it is a very different objective, fine grained interaction is okay because you're on a land environment with very high network speeds. And so even to, even there you may want to avoid it, but chat interaction is okay to have. And in fact, a lot of times you do have it. And the type system is shared across these different environments, right? Typically, even if you use Korba, IDL has a type system that is described for Korba. And that serves as the canonical type system that is common to these two sites, the client side and the server side. That's not true here. So this object actually ignores this notion of a network. We already discussed this with respect to the internet, right? So the latency on the network, especially the internet. And it's typically synchronous request reply, distributed component architectures are synchronous request reply in nature. Although it can be used with message queuing systems, it has been used with a TIPCO or with MQ series to try and ensure that disconnected servers or clients can still be handed, right? There is no shared memory. This we've already seen. There's some quotes that I've put out here. Which is, I'll let you read this rather than me going through this. The second quote is particularly important. I think that is actually the birth of a lot of service orientation came from Jim Waldo's work at Sun, where they worked on the system called Ginny, which was actually a early precursor of service orientation. And Ginny actually came out in maybe the late 90s, early 2000 timeframe. And they realized that objects over a large network such as the internet have to be treated fundamentally differently than objects that may sit on a LAN environment. And your programming models have to be different for that. And they're in kind of started this whole thing. Werner Vogels is the CIO of Amazon, by the way. CIO or CTO, whatever. So the shift in thinking is that when you go from a distributed component architecture to a service-oriented architecture, you go from being function-oriented to coordination-oriented. So you're not calling specific functions. You're calling services and you're able to collaborate amongst these different services. Typically, we'd like to build software that will last for a long time. That's not true in today's world. We want to build software that will change very quickly because the change dimension is upon us and we cannot help that. And that we cannot build large pieces of software and prolonged development cycles no longer exist. The very short cycles, incremental development is the way that things are done today. All right. And we go from tightly coupled architectures to more loosely coupled architectures. We go, so this is going from the left side kind of represents today's distributed component architectures, either with RPC or with objects and the right side represents more service orientation. That's the notion here. And you go from synchronous request-reply call-oriented, that's what I mean by call-oriented. Synchronous request-reply to more message-oriented, asynchronous call-back type of patterns. And we'll see how that works when you actually build an example by hand. And you go from interfaces to more description of abstractions that are semantically richer than what you're used to today with components where it's a syntactically rich description which is not semantically oriented. So summarizing this section, I think distributed objects and distributed components, component architectures and containers are where we stand today. I think most of you agree with that? Is there any disagreement? I think lots of enterprises are building applications, more applications with these technologies. They're also wrapping a lot of legacy applications to work with these technologies because even if they have legacy, what happens is that new development takes place in these newer technologies such as J2E or whatever. And the old systems that they had, legacy systems that they had is typically wrapped so that they can interact with the rest of the system that is being built today. And service orientation does specifically address certain needs, cost of operations and maintenance types of needs, lowering the cost of production deployment because I'm not gonna deploy everything in-house. I'm going to actually use services that are deployed elsewhere now. Classic case being Salesforce.com types of systems, HR systems that are not deployed in-house anymore. They're deployed somewhere else. In fact, entire HR departments are being outsourced to somebody else. I don't even run a HR department in a company anymore. It'll oftentimes, the HR itself is outsourced as a function from the company. So this is a very similar analogy that we can use with respect to the, the computational aspect of it. So the HR system is outsourced. The HR function may remain in-house in this case. Right? Suppose as you have told that HR services then change. This particular service is very popular. Then say many consumers have them. Right. So say instead of distributing, we are centralizing this particular thing. Okay, many, many consumers are using the same services. Logically, yes. Then say problem of load sharing complex. So this is a logical sharing. It doesn't mean that there is, first of all, what we are saying is that HR services are being outsourced. Doesn't mean there is only one provider of HR services. There are many providers of HR services. So. I assume that one provider. There is only one provider. Okay. And say it is a very popular service due to the. Fine. Yes. Fine. The way they provide. So that is, again, so logically you're centralizing. You're correct. Logically, everybody is going to this service provider. Physically, how it is actually set up systems-wise would be very different. It could have many different data centers spread across the country. So suppose you're on the east coast of the country. You might be served out of Calcutta. You might have the west coast of the country. You may be served out of Bombay. So your request may be directed depending on. Hmm? Again, it is a distributed. Yeah. This has nothing to, so this is a conceptual thing. This notion of centralization here is conceptual. That's why I'm saying it's logically centralized. Right. Maybe it is absolutely not. You still have to be able to scale. You have to be able to serve more and more customers. So physically, what will happen is, even if it is located at one place, you probably have a cluster of some kind. Right? Standard IT architectures today are what? There is a web server cluster in the front end with the load balancers sticking in the front. Then there is an app server cluster in the middle tier. Again, with the load balancers in the middle. Then there are parallel databases or there is a centralized database. The three tier problem is still there. Yes, yes. In the three tier problem, load balancing and complexities, all these things is on the server side. That's right. That's right. It is still there. It is still there, but now what is happening is, suppose I am a company. Let's say I am reliance. Right? Now I have two choices. One is I can buy all this HR software and run it in-house. Right? My HR function is completely in-house. That means I have to deploy all these three tier systems in-house, deal with the complexity of that, management complexity, headaches, whatever. Or I can outsource the HR functionality in terms of systems functionality to a HR provider who will provide me with a B2B link that I can hook up my other systems to directly. Now all of that complexity is outsourced to somebody else. Right? So the complexity is getting spread. It is getting distributed amongst multiple providers as opposed to one provider centralizing all that complexity. Right? So that HR provider now is dealing with only the headache of HR. He's not dealing with inventory headaches. He's not dealing with order management headaches. He's not dealing with production scheduling headaches. Nothing. I reliance had to worry about it. Right? But that's why I am trying to reduce my own complexity by pushing the HR function out to somebody else. They will deal with that part of the complexity. It gets amortized over multiple places. That's the notion. Does that answer your question? OK.


the health of our planet on the think tech live streaming network series. I'm your host, Dr. Grace O'Neill. Joining me today is Dr. Silesh Rao, founder of Climate Healers. Today we're going to talk about climate change. So Silesh, tell us about climate healers and how you became interested in climate change. Well, thank you, Grace, for having me on the show. I started working on climate change back in 2005, when I saw Al Gore's presentation on TV and I was so shocked. I said, if half of what he's saying is true, I'm wasting my time working on making the internet go 10 times faster. So that's how I started you know, and the more I looked into it, the more I realized it's actually a far worse problem than than even what Mr. Gore was saying. Because it's it impacts all of us, it impacts our lifestyles impacts our entire system, the way we organize ourselves. So it's a complete system transformation is what it's called for. So I started Climate Healers in 2007, in order to figure out how to heal the climate, as opposed to, you know, maintaining it in the current state of disrepair that it's in. So, so it's think of it, think of it as, you know, patient with a chronic disease or fever and a cancer and heart disease and so on. Going to a doctor and the, you know, asking, what is it that I need to do in order to completely heal myself? Right? It requires you to change your lifestyle. Yeah, yeah, what's your proposal of how we heal climate change?  So it's a it's a rather simple idea. Because it's being in harmony with nature and using nature harnessing nature's power to actually reverse climate change. And I think it can be done. You know, but it requires us to transform our lifestyles to get there. So how do we propose that we do that, I guess? No, how do we propose that we transform our lifestyles? It's actually, it's driven by the grassroots. So if the grass, you know, it turns out that the food system is one of the most powerful labors we have on transforming lifestyles. So when we change our food system, or when we start demanding the right kinds of foods, the system has no choice but to follow us. Okay, so it's really up to us. It's up to each individual. Yeah, we all have the power to heal the climate. I say that the planet has 8 billion potential climate healers, or climate heaters.  And how do you propose what kind of food you propose that people should seek to heal the planet? Yeah, it turns out that the food that heals our body is also the food that heals the climate. It's so beautiful, right? So nature is such a perfect system design, actually. And so if you all, if we all start consuming whole food plant-based vegan meals, then literally the planet will start healing as well. As we heal our bodies, the planet will start healing as well. So in that sense, you know, everything is in perfect alignment. So how does a plant-based diet heal the planet better than an animal-based or just, you know, standard American diet, I guess I should say?  Okay, it's making it close to 100%. That's what's going to heal the planet. And the way it does that is for the remaining 15% of the food that we get from animal sources today, we are literally using 80% of the Earth's surface. So for 12% of the food, which comes from land animals, we are using 37% of the land area of the planet just to graze the animals, and another 6% to grow the crops to feed those animals. And then for the remaining 3% of the food we eat, we are literally destroying the entire ocean. I mean, it's amazing, you know, what we do to the ocean just to get 3% of our food. So this is why if we go 100% plant-based, and then you will release not only about 40% of the land area of the planet back to nature, you'll also release the entire ocean back to nature. And so when you leave things alone, nature starts healing. Okay, in fact, you can just calculate based on how much vegetation is currently being eaten by animals, you know, and you say if that vegetation had been left alone, how much CO2 would have been sequestered by land, you know, by nature alone. And that itself tells us that going vegan, or going whole food plant-based especially, will basically has the potential to reverse climate change. So how about when you say 3% of the food we get, are you saying the 3% of the food we're getting is seafood or what kind of, how is that, what exactly is impacting the ocean when you say 3% of our food? So 3% of our food by dry weight. So the UN, you know, basically, when it calculates how much of the food is coming from different sources, they take out all the water from the food and just weigh the dry food. And so based on the dry weight of the food we consume, 3% is coming from the ocean, which is basically seafood, you know, fish and shrimp and things like that. And for that 3%, we are actually dredging the bottom of the ocean over like 4 billion acres of the ocean floor every year. And it's becoming harder and harder to catch the fish. So we now use big data software and GPS hardware technologies to find the last remaining fish in the ocean. And then all the ships go on congregate over there and drag it from the ocean floor.  That's what I mean, you know, for just that 3% of the food, because we have a tendency to think that once someone starts eating something, they have a right to keep eating that. And then the corporations have a right to do whatever they need to get that food to the person who wants it, right? There is no education. There is, I mean, we don't even tell people, look, it's really hurting you. It's hurting the planet. It's of course, hurting the fish.  So it's that it's a suicidal act that we are pursuing right now. You know, this, this idea that whatever is demanded by human beings have to be somehow met.  I mean, they see that as their right. Well, they, they may see that as their right, but there are a lot of young people who are beginning to see through this and they are already waking up. The rate at which young people are going vegan is astronomical right now. You know, so you can do a survey of cafeterias in universities and colleges and you will see that the rise of veganism is almost unprecedented how fast it's happening. And so we don't have to get 100% of the people to go vegan for the entire industry to collapse. Okay, so the collab I'm looking for, you know, what we need, what we need to do to get the system that is currently destroying the planet to actually fold itself down, you know, so that then people look for alternatives and something like that happens, right. So and the alternatives of there. So this is why we have a new initiative called food healers. We are trying to educate people on how food heals our bodies and heals the climate.  Okay. As part of this education process. So this way, we can spread the word quicker. So your organization is essentially funding the food healers or do you get sponsors that provide the food or how is it working? Are there volunteers that cook the food? Right, so we have volunteers that cook the food we have, we basically appeal to communities to come together and do this on their own. So it's not like we are, you know, collecting funds and giving it to people and saying go do it, you know, because people already have that motivation of healing themselves and healing their communities. Right. So, so it becomes a distributed, decentralized, localized food service enterprise. So, so we are, we are basically giving them the materials that they need, the information that they need to understand why they should be doing this. So they can go and talk to their friends and family and their neighbors and start this process off. Right. So I see that, you know, I see the parallel with what Gandhi was trying to do with the clothing movement in India, in the early 20th century, when he convinced the people of India to change their clothes from, you know, industrially milled clothes in England to hand woven clothes in India. And by doing that, he put enough pressure on the textile industry in England that it collapsed, you know, within 12 years. And that was then, you know, it was at that point that the British government came and negotiated with Gandhi. Right. And the second round, the first round table conference, the second round table conference and all that happened because of that clothing movement, the Kadi movement that he started. I see this food healers as a similar undertaking, where we have to put pressure on these people who have the power, who are actually subsidizing these fishing industries to go and destroy the ocean, who are subsidizing the animal agriculture industry to go and destroy the planet. And we need to put pressure on them to stop it. Because they're literally killing us with this undertaking. And so how do you do that? Well, we need to start handing out free food to people, healthy food to people. And it's, you know, it's basically embracing people with love. Right. And that will allow, I mean, as people buy less and less of the animal products, then that industry will collapse. Right. And people, I mean, the governments will then got start getting pressure from citizens saying, why are you subsidizing that? We should be subsidizing our health as opposed to our diseases. Yeah. So it's kind of getting the word out about educating people about climate change, getting the word out about how animal products cause disease that will help people, you know, and then from people not supporting the industry and people writing to their legislator, hopefully change will happen. So have you at all been in contact with legislators or that's not really what the angle you're going at? I'm focusing more on on grassroots approaches. And I mean, we do talk to local governments and getting them on board and churches, you know, temples, getting them on board. So temples have been very, very responsive. You know, so we just finished World Food Dealers Day. That was Saturday. And so yeah, we had people participating from all over the world. And we had from Ghana to Peru to, you know, Perth, Australia to India. In fact, Delhi, we had almost 100,000 meals served in Delhi. So the idea is to, you know, give out healthy food. And people feel good when they eat healthy food, right? And, and give it away for free. And they ask you, why are you giving it away for free? And then you tell them, you know, we need a food system in which healthy food is free. No, it should be a basic human right to have healthy food. Whereas right now we have a food system in which animal foods which are unhealthy foods that are being subsidized by our governments. And it's being pushed into our school children. You know, and which I think is child abuse, really. Yeah. Yeah.  And then when you're, you know, when you grow up, you're used to that kind of food. So it's a tragedy that people aren't given healthy food when they're a child. And they have all these dairy products and everything. And so it is. And it's just unfortunate. So especially dairy products, I think is a is a travesty because a lot of people of color can't even digest it. So children of color are being systematically discriminated against in the school system, you know, by by the industry and by the government pushing daily products on school children. Yeah, that's dietary racism. Yeah. Have you and your family always been vegan?  Yeah, I went vegan in 2008, when I saw the impact on the environment. I mean, that was my clincher. Because I was already working on the environment, I had started climate healers in 2007. And I was at that point a lacto vegetarian. And I thought that I was not doing much harm because I looked up the scientific papers on impact of dairy. And it basically said it's only about, you know, 10% or 15% worse than going vegan. And I bought into that analysis, initially. And then I went to this forest in Rajasthan, India, and I realized that actually they're doing what is known as a local sensitivity analysis. And if you do a global sensitivity analysis, dairy turns out to be the worst. So as soon as I realized it's the absolute worst thing you could be doing, I went vegan on this spot. Yeah. How about your family? Was it easy to convince them to become vegan? Or how did that go? Well, it was initially, I said, I'm going vegan. And they said, okay, you can cook for us and I'll be lead it, right? So that's how it started. And I started cooking for my family. And and then as a result, everyone was vegan at home. But then when we go out, people, you know, my wife was eating and you know, but she also soon realized that it is in everyone's best interest to go vegan. So she did that a couple of years later, I think, after I did it. And then my children went vegan and they saw a conspiracy. So I had, so I've been pouring in our resources into documentaries. So we did, we funded conspiracy, we gave Oh, yeah, that was a wonderful documentary. Yeah, thank you. That was our second documentary that we were executive producers of we had the first one was called the Human Experiment, which is about, yeah, well, it is, it's actually the foundation because of human experiment is about the chemical pollution of the planet and how these legislative process was subverted in the 50s. So that chemical pollution of the planet could be done without any liability by the corporations. So they basically changed it around so that the corporations can do whatever they wanted. And the consumer, or the person who got affected by that pollution has to prove that that particular chemical caused them that particular disease. And only then the corporation becomes liable. So anyway, that was one of the first laws that have passed that brought us down this path of destroying the planet, you know. So where can we find that human experiment? I mean, Casper is all over obviously, but the human experiment, where do we find that? Oh, it's available for viewing on Unchained TV, which is Jane Willis Mitchell has this new TV channel called Unchained TV. It's an app you can download on your Android, you can download our Roku or, you know, so you can watch it on TV. And that has exclusively exclusive access to the human experiment. Oh, that's great. Is it a free app or like? It's a free app. Yeah, everything on it is free. Unchained TV. And do they have other interesting educational documentaries? Over, I think they have over a thousand videos now. It's all it's all free. And it's basically has its own. So they have Unchained TV has its own series TV series as well.  It's called Pig Little Lies. I think I've heard of that before, but you know, I don't watch a lot of TV. So did you guys also fund Seaspiracy? That was quite good as well. Yeah, Seaspiracy, we didn't need to fund because Netflix funded it. So it was Netflix original documentary.  So we were executing it for What the Health. And then we did the Prayer for Compassion. I think I have over 10 documentaries now that are Oh, really? I haven't seen that one either. Where can you find Prayer for Compassion? Prayer for Compassion can be found on Vimeo for free. I can send you a link to that. You can also find it on Amazon Prime and yeah. Yeah, Oh, Prayer for Compassion is on Amazon Prime. I have Amazon Prime. Okay, that's great. I mean, Seaspiracy, I think a lot of people who eat fish, you know, when I first became vegetarian, I became vegetarian when I was a teenager.   She was so concerned I wasn't getting enough protein. So every day it was fish, fish, fish. I was like, I'm not eating this anymore. You know, but, you know, a lot of people they think that they're doing less harm because they are eating fish. But, you know, there's a lot of, you know, or they think fish is healthier, but I thought Seaspiracy was a very good documentary about. Right. Yeah. So that was great. But I'm glad you pointed out that, you know, what your mother thought that you're not getting enough protein, right? That's the foundational myth from which all this destruction happens, because they have convinced all of us that protein is only found in animal products.  And they have been lying to children about this. And to me, lying to children should be considered a crime against humanity. And those who are writing textbooks with lies like that ought to be prosecuted for that. You know, yeah, I mean, people seem to think, Oh, the best source of protein is in, you know, in meat, and you can only get complete, complete proteins that have this new term, complete proteins, where it has all the amino acids, you can only get that from meat. But it's actually not true at all. So, right, you know, right, all the essential amino acids that you know, right. It's I think it's a carefully built myth in order to promote the industry and therefore promote diseases, and therefore promote pharmaceutical industry, promote hospitals. I mean, there's an entire ecosystem of economic activity that depends on us getting sick.  Yeah. So tell me more about the other documentaries. I'm really interested. Now you said you have about 10. So I want to go and see all of them. So like the first few that I've seen, so you said prayer for compassion, what the health which I've seen, cow spiracy, and then what other ones have you? The human experiment, I told you, right, human experience. And then there was milk, which is about the milk industry in there in New Zealand. Oh, gosh, I have to see that too. Yeah, milk. And then there is the end of medicine, which is, which is also an Amazon Prime, which is about pandemics and and how medicine has this practice today needs to change. Yes. Then there's one, it's called that they are trying to kill us. This is about social justice. Yeah, I like that. I like that title. Yeah. So social justice, it shows that, you know, how people of color are being systematically discriminated against in the food system. Then we did one called Animals of Parallel History. It's about the history of animals and how animals have been used by human beings. Okay, and then the latest one is called the Land of Ahimsa, which is about India. And it is on YouTube right now on the Planet Based News channel. It got released on Thursday and is doing very well. So yeah, it appeals to Indians to to reclaim our role. Yeah, it's so pop. I mean, it's almost as populate is going to take over China. The population is going to be bigger than China. So I think that's great. If all those people because I know there's, you know, a lot of India is vegetarian, but, you know, they're not vegan. And actually, I a long time ago, when I was in medical school, not that long, but you know, when I was in medical school, I went to do an elective in India and went to Gujarat, they're vegetarian state. But no, actually, they eat a lot of cheese, you know, ghee and everything. So, and the food is fried and everything. So they actually have a very high rate of heart attacks and everything. I mean, I was kind of surprised that they even have that because being vegetarian and everything. But that's when I sort of learned that, you know, but being vegetarian is not enough, you really have to keep out the high fatty foods and the dairy from your diet. So that was actually just an experience I had. But you know, if you could influence all the people in India, my gosh, that would be great. Right. India is a perfect country to to embrace veganism quickly, because Indians eat a lot of dairy, but they don't eat a lot of meat. Yeah. So which means that they, they fundamentally have that compassion in them. They're trying to minimize their harm to the animals. But they think by doing dairy, they're minimizing harm. And then we point out to Indians that actually are maximizing harm by consuming dairy, they get shocked, you know, and and a lot of them are willing to change. So this is what we're hoping will happen because we're appealing to Indians to to take the lead in this transformation. Yeah, because it's a spiritual and cultural transformation that needs to happen. And who better to lead the spiritual transformation than India? Absolutely. And then you think, I mean, if, you know, so many people in India did it, then the other people would be looking there and think, well, you know, eventually it would, I think it would make a difference in the health of everybody. So they would look at Indians say, Oh, you know, everybody's health is better there. Maybe we need to change something. Although I will say that even with the China study and everything, nothing's really changed about our diet here. But I think people are starting to realize that we can use lifestyle medicine and improve our health. But it's still it's still not ingrained here yet, because we're still doing a lot of fixing people up after the fact that they already have a disease. That's that's our pattern. But you know, it's unfortunate, you know, eventually, I think people are realizing because now even lifestyle medicine, there's more and more people getting boarded and everything. So things are going to change. It's just takes some time, takes some time, you know, well, change can happen very quickly, too. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I hope so. I hope so. I mean, I think they were the work you're doing is great. So if you could show us the website, Michael, and his website. Yeah. And there's a lot of information on the website actually about climate change. And there's also you have all your movies there. Yeah, we have links to those movies. And there's one movie I didn't mention, which is Countdown Dear Zero, which is I wasn't an executive producer of that, but I'm the protagonist. Jane Welles Mitchell and Unchained TV did that movie. Oh, wow. Yes. Yeah. I would I would love to have her on my show. Maybe if you could hook me up. Yeah, sure. I definitely would be happy to say to think we would like to have we would definitely like to have her as a speaker. I mean, but, you know, we're out of time. But thank you so much. I really, really enjoyed having you as a guest. So we have to wrap it up now. This is Dr. Grace O'Neill. This is Healthy Planet on the ThinkTech live streaming network series. We've been talking to Dr. Silesh Silesh Rao of Climate Healers. Thanks to Michael, our broadcast engineer, and the rest of the crew at ThinkTech for hosting our show. And thanks to you, our listeners for listening. I'll see you in two weeks for more of Healthy Planet on ThinkTech, the show for people who care about their health and the health of our planet. My next guest will be Dr. Neil Barnard, the founder of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. If you have ideas for the show or questions for my future show guests, please contact me at Healthy Planet ThinkTech at gmail.com. Check out my website at graceandhawai.com or Instagram at Graceful Living 365 for more information on my projects, including future show guests. I'm Dr. Grace O'Neill. Aloha, everyone. Thank you so much for watching ThinkTech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at ThinkTechHawaii.com. Mahalo.


So part of the, I think the challenge of keeping track of all of this is kind of some geographic differences, differences in response. So if we take South Korea, and we talked about this last time of how South Korea's response was, you know, about as good as it can get, I guess. And I don't know if you still think that, but it's obviously in terms of outcome has had really positive outcome. But then why is it that it hasn't come back stronger given that they haven't really had as much social distancing? No travel restrictions, as far as I know really in South Korea. Why don't we see this as a constant kind of up and down with them? They get a few cases, but it doesn't seem like it's anything dramatic. It's hard to say exactly what's going on in all those countries. We know that South Korea acted really quickly, took all the right actions exactly as if you were writing like a textbook on how to respond to an emerging infectious disease outbreak. That's what they did. And they got a lot of reward for it because they didn't have that type of debt. But they are, I do don't suspect that they're not going to have mild cases. It could be that more cases occurring. I think it could be the fact that how much travel is occurring outside of the country. Did they get all of their cases extinguished and there's maybe a small ebb and flow of imported cases that are coming from other places? Because I know international travel is down everywhere and that may be something. Because when you look at places like China, for example, they're getting cases that are imported from other parts of the world. And it may be that travel restrictions that have occurred there have kept their cases low. But the overall goal in all of these places is not going to be to keep cases to zero. That's impossible. It's going to be keep cases below a level that the hospitals can handle them. And I think that's what you have to do everywhere. And that's the metric to use because this is going to happen everywhere that when they open, they're going to say they've opened too early. And it's not just because cases go up. It's because the cases put their hospitals in problem. So you're hearing about Japan, at least I think on the island of Hokkaido where they had to re-institute an emergency declaration because the cases went up too quickly after they peeled back. So this is going to be kind of this tug of war with this virus, trying to see how much we can do safely before we get into another crisis. And it may not happen in every place. It's really going to be dependent on population density and hospital capacity in each geographic area. So there's no easy answers here. Yeah, I think the numbers in the new cases in Singapore, the numbers I saw overwhelmingly in kind of the migrant worker populations, they're in these dormitories where these migrant workers live in very, very tight living spaces. And they travel in and out of Malaysia. Most of the migrant workers are Malai. And that's where I think it was something like 90% of all the new cases. Singapore has a very unique outbreak and they have a very unique system where all these migrant workers in the dormitories that they live in are really going to be hotbeds for spread because they don't social distance as well there. And Singapore is interesting because it was a case where they didn't close schools. And I think that's an example, lots of us are using when we're trying to argue for opening schools back up in the United States. So speaking about a place that didn't close schools, what is your sense of what is happening in Sweden? And what we can learn from it and whether, you know, because you read, you know, it's horrible how politicized, right? Everything has come. So some news outlets all for Sweden and anything they do is fantastic. Other news outlets, it's, you know, Sweden is the devil and everything they do is horrific. So what's your sense of how Sweden has done in this crisis? So you have to expect if you allow the virus to go that you're going to get more deaths and that's what they have more deaths per capita, their death rate is increasing, and they're getting a lot of criticism for it. It's unclear to me what their hospital capacity is in how much hospital capacity they have to spare. This is kind of, I would say, almost a societal value judgment that they made that this is the way that they were going to do this. I know that some of their deaths have been in nursing home patients, and I know that some of these Scandinavian countries are much different about end of life care than places like the United States, for example. So I think that this is maybe a philosophical difference that we're seeing underlying this. I do think they're going to get more deaths that are going to be criticized for that. They may reach herd immunity, but it may be a very big societal cost. And they're not completely letting everything open. Obviously, certain mass gatherings are banned. People are social distancing, teleworking. It's not quite nearly like what we're doing in the United States, but this is something that I think really is explained by the underlying philosophical approach they took. And I don't think if we would have not done anything in New York City, those hospitals would have probably caved. It would have went into crisis standards of care with rationing. So I do think that there were hotspots in the United States that if no action were taken, we would have been in a disaster, a worse disaster than we were already in. And I think that this type of a solution isn't what you can do in every place. It really has to be geographically driven. And the jury is still out on exactly what happens with Sweden. And they are going to take a lot of criticism because they made that decision. And it's interesting to me that Sweden chose to do this. And at the same time, didn't do the kind of testing and kind of tracking and isolating. And to the extent that something somewhere like South Korea did. So you'd think that they would combine the two and not just leave society open, but not engage in the testing. Yeah, so I think that's also something to come up with criticism, to criticize them, because if you were going to do that, you want to make sure you could easily expire a lot of control to a point where hospitals can't handle it. The only way you're going to keep that down is by at least doing testing and doing isolation of infected cases and trying to understand their contacts and keeping track of all of that. So to do this kind of, they kind of took the false alternative of letting the virus completely go as much as you could with some social distancing versus a Wuhan style lockdown where you basically had a police state type of tactic. I've also read somewhere that in Sweden's case, the primary deaths are obviously in nursing homes, but also among they've got a huge immigrant population from the Middle East, which again don't socially distance and, you know, so very similar to Singapore, and who live in very confined spaces and multi-generational spaces. So they're not typical traditional Swedes who tend to socially distance almost naturally and don't have that. So, you know, they've got a little bit of that Singapore, you know, aspect to them where they have two kind of societies in the same space. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, women's or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. So using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time so I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. And those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to Iranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribe star.com Iranbrookshow and and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this to keep this going.


He was a 36-year veteran firefighter and fire chief for 25 years. He passed away Monday at the age of 62 and Today the Shelby Valley community bid farewell to longtime fire chief Darryl Compton Ernest Darryl Compton died Monday after battling cancer. He leaves behind his wife Diana, a daughter Kristen, a son Nicholas, a granddaughter, two brothers, and a sister He also leaves behind the Shelby Valley Volunteer Fire Department Over which he watched as chief for two and a half decades Thursday's services were touching and heartbreaking and featured participation from fire departments and emergency response agencies From all over and around Pike County At Compton services the longtime chief received one last call over the radio Fire Department unit This is the last call for chief Ernest Darryl Compton in the 2531 In the 2531 we'd like to thank you for your 36 total years of service and dedication and 26 years as chief to the Shelby Valley community Chief Compton, you will be greatly missed In the 2531 will be 10-10 for the final time at R.H. Ratworth Cemetery in Shelby, Anna Timeout 14.02, all panels are clear Reporting in Pike County for EKB news, I'm Chris Anderson


As a science broadcaster and environmental activist, he has been fighting for the protection and understanding of our environment for nearly 40 years. He is perhaps best known for his long-running and popular TV science magazines The Nature of Stinks and for criticizing government's lack of action to protect the environment. This past February, he completed a hugely successful trans-Canadian tour entitled A Feeware Prime Minister, giving ordinary Canadians a chance to tell our government what they would do if they were elected prime minister. An overwhelming majority of people spoke of real action on the environment and global warming. It is my pleasure to introduce to you Dr. David Suzuki. I just want to tell you that I just came in from Toronto last night. Yesterday afternoon I met with the National Hockey League Players Association and they are pushing a program to have as many hockey league players as possible sign up to travel carbon neutral throughout their entire hockey season. They've only gone to 17 of the 30 teams and already they have over 300 people signed. They think they may hit over 600. The entire Dallas team signed, the entire Florida team signed. I don't know how many connects have signed on, but it was a very exciting example of the fact that people are beginning to take action in their own lives. I'll talk about that later. I just would like to put this whole issue now in some kind of context. As a biologist, I know that the evidence is that human beings arose on the planet about 150,000 years ago in Africa. And the key to our success, compared to all of the other incredible animals on the plains of Africa, we weren't very impressive.  It invented the idea of a future. No other animal has a sense of a future as we do. And because we have invented an idea of a future, we're the only creature that realized we can affect the future by what we do today. If we look ahead through our experience and knowledge, we can see where the dangers lie. We can see where there's opportunity. And we can affect the future by what we choose to do today. We can avoid danger and exploit opportunity. And I believe that foresight was the great key to our species' enormous success. In only 150,000 years, we've taken over the planet. And now we've got all of the increased ability to predict, to look ahead. We've got scientists and computers, engineers and telecommunications. And for over 40 years, they've been telling us that we're heading down a very dangerous path. And now at this moment, we are turning our backs on the very strategy that got us to where we are. We're no longer listening and we're saying, no, but we can't afford to do that. Something really bizarre is happening. You could say, well, we're so smart, we don't have to do that anymore. I'd just like to remind you that for over 30 years, scientists in the United States said New Orleans should never have been built where it is. You don't build a city in the heart of hurricane country where half the city is below sea level. If you want to avoid a force 5 hurricane which is bound to come, this is what you've got to do. And for 30 years, politicians said, we can't afford to do that. It'll ruin the economy. And you all know what happened when Hurricane Katrina came. Foresight is the strategy, the strategy for our survival. The Nature of Things did the first television program on global warming in 1988. And in 1988, I wrote, this is an issue of great importance that we have to act on now. But it's a slow-motion catastrophe. In 1988, I believed it wouldn't kick in for another 50 to 100 years. I thought we had time. And what shocked me is that every year since then, the reports have just been getting stronger and more urgent. In 1988, I want to remind you, the environment was the absolute number one issue around the world. A guy ran for president of the United States and said, if you vote for me, I will be an environmental president. His name was George H. W. Bush. There wasn't a green bone in his body, but he had to say that because Americans had put the environment at the top of the agenda. And as soon as he was elected, he showed how shallow campaign promises are. He became the worst environmental president the U.S. has ever had. And he stayed that way until his son was elected. Then he became the second worst environmental president the U.S. has ever had. 1988, that's interesting. I just gave a talk to the EPA in Washington two weeks ago, and I said that line, nobody claps. They're scared shitless. Someone was listening to them. 1988, Brian Mulroney was re-elected and appointed his brightest star to be a minister of the environment. Who knows who that was? Lucien Bouchard. And I interviewed Lucien Bouchard two months after he was appointed. I said, what's the most important issue Canadians face? And right away he said global warming. And I said, how important is it? How serious? He said it threatens the survival of our species. If we don't act now, we're in deep trouble. 1988, major conference of atmosphere scientists in Toronto. Brian Mulroney appointed Stephen Lewis to chair one of the sessions in that meeting. Scientists were already so worried about global warming. They said we must aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in 15 years. That's 20% below 1988 levels. Brian Mulroney set up a committee to say, can it be done and how much will it cost? And that committee found that it could be done, but it would cost over $50 billion. But if we didn't, we would save a net $150 billion in health costs, costs of wear and tear on roads and all of that. $150 billion. That report has never been released to the public. You know why? Because Brian Mulroney knew that he would take the heat if he started to spend that money to reduce emissions. And somebody else 15 years later would get credit for doing it. And this is a dilemma that we face. The deal with climate now is not an issue that can be dealt with and solved before the next election. So it's too far down the line for politicians. What politician is going to take the heat for spending that money when someone else will get credit for it down the line? So what do we do? We've got a real dilemma then. We have to make this an issue, an issue that is the number one issue in the coming election. We've got an election coming. You know it's coming within a year. Don't allow them to subsume the issue of climate, to overwhelm it with issues of crime and marijuana sentencing and gay marriage and stem cell research. All of those are important issues. But we've got a demand at every all candidates meeting. We've got a right and call and keep this at the top of the political agenda. And once the election is held, whoever's elected, we've got to keep the heat on and demand that they do what they said they would do before the election. Adrian is right. This is the issue of our time. But we've got to do more than just stand here and demonstrate. We've got to get into the hurly-burly of the next election and make it the issue that every politician is going to face up to. It's up to us. Thank you.


Amnesty training have expressed worry over the denial of due payment exit plan with less than 13 days to end the current batch of the presidential Amnesty training in some centers in Niger Delta region. Some beneficiaries of the presidential Amnesty program in River State have staged a peaceful protest to the Amnesty office in Potarkot to demand for their due payment as agreed by the federal government. The aggrieved beneficiaries from different training sectors in River State expressed worries over the denials of payment due to them saying that they will continue to agitate for the right thing to be done. They have appealed to those in charge to make provisions of the demands on entitlement due to them before exiting the training centers or face more serious actions. Every delegation is expected to have a two bedroom flat, a car and a good sum of money to live our life at normal citizens all over the world where oil is being produced. Look at Qatar, look at the United Arab Emirates, all the cities that are living where, what have we done wrong as people who are agitating for a better living in Nigeria Delta. So we are calling on the federal government to come and look into this matter. When we started this training they said is trained, employed and a mentor but along the line the the coordinator was changed and the new man came with the policy that is not where with us. Last week he sent some officials from Abuja to come and meet us in our various centers and they brought a form that specified that it was an empowerment grant scheme. Now they verbally told us that if you feel this form you will be evicted from the program. While his boss has already said it to the whole world that there is no more evicting, there is no more exiting, there is no more winding down of the program. So we came here for a peaceful protest and our demand is very very simple. If he knows our fundamental entitlements and benefits for the program he should provide it. Our laptops, our training allowance and our empowerment scheme he should provide it. Now we have just started this for the training to end. The 750 we didn't resent it is because of the clush, the boot that is why we resent it. If they want to exist since 2000 and 13 to 12 years, people will not train, they will not exist there. We are some of us, this is our first training, this is our first training and they want to exist us. Is it fair? No. So our demand, they should bring the 750. This is our training allowance, then they should come for us to discuss our take-off home.