Alright, welcome back. So this is a little bit of a summary slide before we move on to new things. The point I want to make here is that different unstable isotopes all decay in their own special ways. They all sort of decay slightly differently. Carbon 14, which we covered in an earlier video, breaks apart or decays by beta decay. Uranium 238 decays by alpha decay, etc., etc. Different unstable isotopes decay in their own special way. In fact, a lot of unstable isotopes, they decay by combination of different kinds of decays. So you might have some unstable isotope that maybe does 80% beta decay and 20% alpha decay. So things can get kind of messy with these types of decays, but we just present you with relatively simple types of decays just because you don't need to know the super complicated stuff. In case this was not clear, these unstable isotopes are called radioactive isotopes. In other words, everything that we've been talking about when it decays, those are radioactive materials. Why are they called radioactive materials?  So we say those unstable isotopes radiate parts of the atom. That's basically one of the reasons why they're called radioactive. So there you go.   You can see them, even though the things that get fired off are really, really small. You can't see them, you can't see the actual particle with your own eye. You can see how far they go with your own eyes using something called a cloud chamber. So I'm going to show you briefly a video. Cloud chamber is basically like a box, maybe the size of a microwave oven. And inside of the cloud chamber, there's a vapor, basically like a mist, if you want. And that vapor is really sensitive. If you just mess with it a little bit, the vapor will condense and you'll see these, it'll condense into basically a mist that you can see, but you can't really see it when it's a vapor. And what they do in the cloud chamber, there's the vapor there, you throw in a little bit of radioactive material and every time an electron or a helium gets fired off into the distance, that thing that got fired off is enough to disturb the vapor. And what you'll see is the vapor will condense along the trail that the electron or the helium that got fired off into, along the trail that that thing made. So if you have an electron that gets fired off this way, the vapor that's all surrounding it will condense and you'll see this little smoky streak. And you can see this with your own eyes.  So here's a cloud chamber in action. So here's the cloud chamber. You can see these streaks already from the cloud chamber. Every time you see a streak, that is basically an electron or a helium getting fired off into the distance and you can see this with your own eyes. I think you're going to see someone's hands show up in a minute just to show you how big this box is. There's the person. But that is a cloud chamber.  Here is a different kind of equation. This is a somewhat famous equation. It sure looks a lot more complicated. But there's one question mark in the equation. And so I could ask you to figure out what this question mark is. You can certainly do that. You can pause the video if you want and try to work through it. I'm going to work through it here. So we're going to split the equation down the arrow. This time we have more than one thing on the left side. So we're going to add up the weight of everything on the left side. It weighs 236, everything. That means everything on the right side has to add up to a weight of 236. This thing weighs 91. This thing weighs one. But if you notice, we have three of them. So really a total weight of three over there. So 91 plus three is going to get us to 94. So these things add up to 94 weight. So whatever this question mark is, it has to have a weight of 236 minus 94. And if you do the subtraction, you end up with 142. So the question mark has to have a mass number of 142. You do the same thing with the bottom numbers. We've got two things. We add up the bottom numbers on the left side, add up to 92. That means all of the bottom numbers on the right side have to also add up to 92. The krypton atom has 36 of those positives. This thing here has none. So I don't care if we have three of them, it doesn't have any positive charges. So the question mark, how many positive charges does it have? It has to have 92 minus the 36 that the krypton has. And if you do that, you'll see that the question mark has 56 positive charges. And if you look up who has 56 positive charges in the periodic table, you'll see that it's an atom called barium, and the symbol for barium is capital B, lowercase a. So there we go. That was a more complicated type of equation, but it still only had one missing piece. So the same rules applied. We could figure out what the missing piece was by matching the top numbers and matching the bottom numbers on the left and right side of the arrow. This particular equation is famous, maybe not famous to most of you, but it is somewhat famous to introduce what is famous about this equation. I need to talk about this. This lowercase n stands for neutron. If you remember, a neutron has a mass number of one. That's why there's a one here, and it has no electrical charge. That's why there's a zero in the lower left. And this equation says, if I take uranium 235 and I hit it with a neutron, that's a neutron there, one neutron, I can basically split this uranium into two different atoms. I can make some energy, and I get three more neutrons. And some people far smarter than I am realized something about this equation, and they said, look, if I have a big ball of uranium 235 atoms, so pretend there's a whole bunch of uranium 235s in here, and I just tap it with one neutron, just one. Maybe that neutron hits this uranium and it splits that uranium and releases a little bit of energy, but it's also that uranium is also gonna release three more neutrons. And maybe those three more neutrons can slam into another uranium that's sitting around nearby, actually three more uranium that are sitting nearby. It's gonna split, those three neutrons are gonna split three more uranium. They're gonna release three times as much energy, but now you're gonna release nine more neutrons because each of those uraniums is gonna release three more neutrons. Those nine neutrons can slam into nine more uraniums, split those uraniums, release nine times as much energy as the first uranium splitting, release a whole bunch more, I think that's 27 more neutrons. Those 27 more neutrons can hit 27 more uraniums, release more energy, and this keeps going. You release more and more energy until you have an enormous explosion, just by taking a little bit of uranium, tapping it with a neutron or a couple of neutrons, and it just keeps going because you keep making more and more neutrons that can hit more and more uraniums and release more and more energy. And this is basically how the first atomic bomb worked. This is called a chain reaction. You take one uranium, hit it with a neutron, get three more neutrons, get some energy. Those three more neutrons can slam into three more uraniums, get a whole bunch more neutrons, get more energy.  Like I said, that's how the first atomic bomb worked. So what's the big deal with radioactive material? Well, you can release a lot of energy by manipulating radioactive material. If you do it in a more careful way, you can use the energy that gets released to heat up water, and the heated up water can turn a wheel, and that can be used to make electricity. That's how a lot of nuclear power plants work. So radioactive material, you can get a lot of energy out of it. You can destroy things with it. You can also make electricity with it and do other useful things. What's the big deal with radioactive material, part three? Well, this is supposed to be a picture of your genetic material, your DNA.  If you, the problem with radioactive material and people is that the things that get fired off are very often absorbed by our genetic material and other molecules in our body, and they have enough energy that they can damage our genetic material. So this is supposed to show you damage. There you can see that the DNA got cut. And if you do enough damage to your genetic material, you can end up with things like cancer, or you can end up with, can cause birth defects, things like that. So radioactive material can be used destructively for not necessarily good things. You can also use it to, like I said, to generate electricity. So there are useful things as well for radioactive material. And there are also useful things in medicine that involve radioactive materials. I talked about PET scans in an earlier video. So radioactive materials, they can be used for good and for bad.  Apparently the Russians seem to enjoy that method. Again, I'm not gonna go into this, but this is a big chunk of radioactive material that was involved in killing at least two people and harming others. And because of that, it's called the demon core. This person here ended up dead because he did not treat this thing with enough respect and he ended up killing himself. But that's for the on-ground class. You can read about it if you want. Here is an example of radioactive material being used in medicine. So I'm gonna talk about a medication that I don't, I'm not even sure this medication gets used anymore. There are other ones that are used. This medication is called Bexar.  When you take the medication, it gives a lot of detail about the medication. That sheet of paper is sometimes called prescribing information. So what I'm gonna show you is a little piece of the prescribing information for Bexar. Here it is, well, here's some of it. Bexar is a drug for the treatment of follicular lymphoma. That is a blood cancer, so this particular drug is used to treat a special kind of blood cancer. This is more of the prescribing information for Bexar. Bexar contains what, everybody? Well, it contains iodine 131. And what I will tell you is that this isotope of iodine is unstable, and there's another piece of prescribing information. It says iodine 131 emits both beta and gamma radiation. So this unstable isotope does two kinds of decay. In case you're curious, the way that Bexar works is it's basically used to kill off cancer cells. Problem with radiation.  Problem is that radioactive material is also good at killing cells that are not cancerous.  Let's pretend that this is a cancer cell, and maybe this one over here is a healthy cell. So you wanna give radiation to the cancer cell and you wanna spare the healthy cell.  And somewhere on the Y-shaped molecule, they have stuck the iodine 131. And this Y-shaped molecule is really good at sticking to the cancer cells and not so good at sticking to the healthy cells.  And it's less likely to stick to the healthy cells.  That's basically how Bexar works and a little bit of healthcare information as well. So what do I want you to know? Please don't memorize what alpha decay is, what beta decay is, positron, those types of things like that. You should be able to basically look at a decay equation and figure out the missing piece. That's what this bullet point says. You should also know that radioactive isotopes are unstable atoms, you should know why radioactive material can be useful, and you should know why it can be dangerous. And that's the end of this video. See you in the next one. ["Ratomic Bomb"] ["Ratomic Bomb"]


Professor Baker, ar y fwy ysgolwydau i gynlluniaethol, sy'n mynd i'w fawr o'r cyflawn ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd. Felly mae'n dod o ffodol o'r ddau'r mynd i gael cyflawn o'r ffordd o'r gael o'r ysgolwydau a'r ddau'u gael, ac i'r rhesonegau i'r strategi ac i'r meathodologi. Felly, i'w wneud yn fawr o'r llythbu gyda iawn hwnnw, yna, eich cwestiynau lligwyd bwysig i'r llwyr mewn gondol. Roeddwch rywbeth am fy sefydlu i ddiweddau y cwestiynau hynny. Felly, y dyfodol yn y cwestiynau llythbu, ein cwestiynau llygwyd ar yr ysbryd yma, wedi gweld rydyn ni'n cynhwyl treadlau mewn llygwyd, ac 어� byddwn i'n fyddechau rhywbeth arwot. Byddwn i'n ddweud, yn cael ei gwybod yn gyfail o'r llythbu i'w perthyniadol. I didn't think I ever felt I understood anything legal unless I knew where it had come from and why and no doubt agreeing to write a textbook on legal history was some sort of decision so it was quite early on. I wondered how your interest evolved over the years. Was it opportunistic as you made various discoveries? Well to some extent although discoveries tend to be related to what you're going looking for Rwy'n meddwl i wneud i gyrw'r ffordd i'r ystyried mewn cyfyrdd yn eu meddwl a fewnwch ar weld arno i gynnwyd, fwy o ddigonion arhoedd o'r dwydym nhw. Rwy'n meddwl i gyd i'r gyrw i. Dyma, dyma ydych chi'n meddwl oes gennych maen nhw i'r thilydd. Mae'r arddangos oherwydd iddyn nhw, rwy'n meddwl o'n meddwl ein slog i'w goffydd. Rydyn ni'n meddwl padsio gyrfa, ac mae'n gilydd at y mi nydig i'r taeth mewn tyniadau. Dydw you have periods of intense reading, and then perhaps you were doing a sabbatical, or were you able to do your writing interspersed with a lecture programme? Well, there are two stages, obviously there's the collection of material, and then when you think you've got enough, there's trying to write it off and working out if you've got something worth saying. The collecting material had to be spread out over odd moments and intervals, precious visits to the public record office of the British Museum, or even the UL, sometimes difficult to get to in turn time, and one just did that whenever one could. For writing up, it is a good idea to have a bit of extended peace and quiet if one can get it, so vocations provided that. I didn't ever have that many sabbaticals, and they're not that conducive to the research stage, because one is always tempted to go far away, and one is away from the sources. They are very good for writing up, because it's an advantage to be away from the sources and you don't go away chasing footnotes when you should be concentrating on the main writing, and the All Souls Fellowship was particularly helpful in that respect, I got a lot done there. Many or most of your works describe how you need access to particular materials, for example play rolls, yearbooks and a range of manuscripts. I wondered how quickly you managed to master the Latin and the Law of French to translate such texts. I started with the printed yearbooks in the Inner Temple Library, as I mentioned previously, and it's much a matter of understanding the abbreviations as the language, and eventually you realise it's all standardised and you come to know what the forms are. My biggest learning period, I suppose, was editing spellmen when I had to grapple with the Law of French and with the Latin of the play rolls, and they thought editing is something you can't duck issues, you've got to translate every word, so you just have to keep at it until you've made sense of it. Eventually I ended up writing a little glossary of Law of French, because no one had done one before. It even went into a second edition, it doesn't have a vast readership. A feature of your works is your constant use of original research, even in your introductory book, and many start with the discovery of a manuscript. This must have given you a strong intellectual base upon which to set your articles in your books. We're not just reinterpreting previous cases, or other scholars' theories, but presenting completely fact-based observations upon which to base new ideas, and this place and much of your work beyond dispute. It seems to me a very scientific approach, and I wondered whether this was a conscious strategy that you adopted throughout your career. I'm not sure I've ever had any conscious strategies, I just got on and done it, did what seemed obviously necessary to gather the evidence, and I've always tried to stick to the evidence. I get accused of sticking too close to it and being an internalist and not taking enough account of what's going on outside the sources. My work has been very largely based on manuscripts, what I find in them. Having settled on legal history as your chosen subject, can we briefly look at the early years of your research? I wondered whether you could tell us something about your first book, Introduction to English Legal History, which appeared in 1971, and presumably you spent several years at UCL working on it on the sources for this book. Do your earliest papers give clues as to your thinking and your approach, as they were written while the book preparation was ongoing? The earliest paper that I found was published in 1968, when you were about 23 years old, a sixth copy of Blackstone's lectures published in the law courtly review. No, that was just an announcement of a find in the law library. The law library at UCL had just moved from the rather stately Donaldson library into this warehouse-like building, and I think they probably decanted the contents of the store there as well when this Blackstone manuscript turned up. It hadn't been in the old library. And I just took it to the issue desk and they stamped out the return date inside it. I took it straight to Professor Keaton, the head of departments, and he said you should put a note in the law courtly review, so that's what I did. But it wasn't a piece of research at all. But it was the start of a long and enthralling journey that you began? Well, it showed an interest in manuscripts, I suppose. There were other papers, 12 papers, published during the gestation period of your book, your introduction to English legal history, and I wondered if they represented parallel projects or were they spin-offs from your research for the book. For example, councillors and barristers, this was a paper on an aspect of a legal profession and there's also a section in your book on barristers. It's quite a short section, I think, of two pages. The truth is I didn't do much research for the book, if any, because my object wasn't to set out the results of research, but to try to summarise very briefly what was known for the benefit of students. So the research was going on in parallel, and of course if I discovered something that seemed to be necessary in a brief outline, I put it in, but it wasn't designed to alter what I was saying. Later on, in subsequent editions, of course, one finds a bit more results of research than I'd done, but that's inevitable. Incidentally, in your Irish jurist paper, you made a youthful conclusion, you were 25 years old at the time, that the 16th century battle between Cook and Ellesmere was more about personalities than equity and law, and I wondered whether this conclusion has stood the test of time. I think so, and I don't suppose anybody now believes that that dispute was about the need for equity, which it wasn't, and it was certainly a clash of personalities. It was also, I think, a constitutional crisis of a kind, and I've been exploring that in my latest book on Magna Carta. I think that was actually one of the best articles I ever wrote, and having revisited it 30 or 40 years later, I wasn't able to add very much to it. It was based, and what sparked off was the discovery of Timothy Turner's notebook in the British Museum, which had some very significant comments on what was going on in 1616. That was a happy discovery, and I haven't found anything more telling since then on that particular subject. Just as an aside, your funeral monuments in the air, published in the Irish Jurist in 1970, seems quite an esoteric topic, and I wondered what drew you to this in this earlier period of your research. Well, that was another tangential piece of work, and obviously it related to an early interest in monuments, but it wasn't an antiquarian piece. I was interested in the doctrine which put forward that the ownership of a funeral monument belongs to the person who put it up during their lifetime, and then it goes to the heirs of the person commemorated. That seemed to me one of the most extraordinary doctrines in the common law because it's the only example of a remainder in real property by operation of law rather than by grant, and I wanted to know whether Cooke had just made it up. That's what that was about, but it stood alone as a subject that doesn't relate to anything else.


If there's nothing else specific coming up, I'd like to begin with what I talked about yesterday at the beginning of our session, was going through the review of the first twenty-five lessons, not going through every single lesson, but there's review sections after the lessons that have little paragraphs that are several sentences long that just review the main ideas of each lesson. And this can be really powerful, because if you really can stay with the awareness of what's in those first twenty-five lessons, you know, it really is a protection for your mind. I mean, you get to the later lessons of I am the light of the world, and peace and joy, and love, and the light in me, and I am as God created me, and so many times I keep hearing people say, I just don't always experience that. I just, at times I feel kind of sarcastic when I'm even reading the lesson, because there's a part of me that just doesn't believe it. And so that's why we go back, ones that come before it, and if you really can hope, stay with those first, the metaphysics of those first twenty-five lessons, you've got the whole metaphysics of the course, and you'll be very safe, because you won't slide off into the patterns.  And more so than an eraser, because even the erasers leave some chalk. When I was a kid in school, I always loved it when a teacher would come out with that red rag. You know how blackboard looks after it's been gone over? Really black. Yeah, clear. I mean, there's nothing on it. There's not even any chalk dust on it. So you can think of those first twenty-five lessons as getting the red rag out. That's the way you stay clear in your mind is if there's even dust, chalk dust hanging around, it will get irritating. So get the red rag out, and if you hang with it that, oh, in either case, it's the lesson fifty-one where the review begins. If you can just get these first twenty-five review lessons down, you know how they used to say in school, this is going to be very important, students. Memorize this. Well, not only memorize these, but it's best to know, I would say know these like the back of your hand. Know these so well. You know, it's like what Keith was talking yesterday about being prepared for a test and that feeling of control and power. You know these first twenty-five review lessons so well and you will be oblivious to the ego. If you really, because all the metaphysics that undo the ego are right here. You know, they're very profound and if you really want to be happy and you want to protect your happiness, so to speak, and you really value peace of mind, it would be worth really reviewing these very consistently, you know, maybe even daily and going over them. So we'll go through them and if there's anything that comes up, even as we're going through them, any kind of questions or whatever, then just bring it forth and that way it'll help anchor the meaning and get clear, keep it there. Number one, nothing I see means anything. The reason this is so is that I see nothing and nothing has no meaning. It is necessary that I recognize this that I may learn to see. What I think I see now is taking the place of vision. I must let it go by realizing it has no meaning so that vision may take its place. What about the words on this page? Nothing. They mean nothing. Meaning comes from your mind. You, as I used to, as I said yesterday, these words were invented to maintain the separation and the very words you see, even the words on this page were invented by the ego to maintain the separation. There is no the reason this is so in heaven. So you can apply that to everything, including the words on this page.  You have salvation. Here you go. As it's been said many times, all you've got to do is get it once or get it some way. The reason that there seems to be so many pages and so many different angles is because there's such resistance to get it. As Jesus says at one point, the correction takes no time at all but the acceptance of the correction can seem to take forever. There's great glory in this. Wherever you seem to be, whatever you seem to be doing, you can always come back to this glorious lesson number one. Whenever you start feeling worked up or tight or tense or stressful, you can start practicing as you move your eyes around wherever you seem to be. So to clarify that, it's like saying that there's nothing objective outside world. And it's also saying that the world, the projected world is unreal. So you're seeing nothing. I mean, that would be a pretty good definition of a hallucinating state. You're seeing nothing or you're seeing something that doesn't exist. To use the metaphor in the world would be more like seeing a mirage on the desert. But this is saying the desert. The desert doesn't even exist much less the mirage on the desert. There's nothing that is being perceived that has any... I'm just trying to get behind this means anything like this doesn't mean anything. But yet this seems to be the tool that we're using to come to the realization. It seems that way. But again, what's in the world is just symbolic or representational. And the way to come to the awareness of your true identity is in the mind. The course, I mean even when we use the word tool, and I know that that's even being put in our journal, I think that something about David has used the course as a tool for whatever, transformation of his mind. That's a metaphor. You could say David has met such and such teachers along his path and he studied under da da da da. That's a metaphor. Once you come to the awareness of the clarity, you realize that none of that was Diddly Squad. That was just all projection and the Holy Spirit, the light in one's mind. That's how one came to the awareness of light. It was this abstract loving light that was helping work with the mind and all his beliefs. That's what has really been the, if you had to say tool or you had to say the guide to coming to the transformation of consciousness, it's the Holy Spirit. It's not a person and a place and it's certainly not a book. This is the book, the persons, the places are all symbolic. And when the mind still believes it's in the world, that's all it knows. So it's a helpful metaphor to say, you know, the course has been a meaningful tool. I don't see it that way anymore. Kind of funny. I think that a book could be meaningful, could be causative. You know, when you start to put it in those terms, tools can seem to be helpful or causative, but they they aren't. So that's just like a real introductory lesson. But again, everything we go on as we continue on, it will give the reasons why the what you see is nothing and nothing has no meaning. It's just saying in the lesson one, it is necessary that I recognize this, that I may learn to see. If you could really just in one instance see how the world arose, really see it how the world arose. That would change everything. But it's when the mind doesn't remember how the world arose. It thinks that the world just is an objective reality. And that it thinks that it's a body that came to the world that already was existing. And it has completely forgotten how the world arose. It it's forgotten that it's all a projection of the ego. And that there's no world outside its own mind. But that's what we're because we keep going into this. That's what will become more and more apparent. Finally, totally apparent. Number two, I have given what I see all the meaning it has for me. I have judged everything I look upon. And it is this and only this I see the judgment. If we go into the metaphysics a little bit here for that first sentence, you know how I talk about ordering of thoughts and that ordering of thoughts is judgment. That's what judgment is, is the ordering of thoughts. So the mind orders its thoughts, orders all these concepts and images, and then they're automatically projected because they don't come from God. And the judgment is too horrifying. It's too horrifying to hold on to the ego belief system and the Holy Spirit. So again, thoughts that don't come from God are automatically projected. It's not like the mind goes, What should I do with this? It's like get it out of here. And so again, the only way that the world perceptual world is going to disappear is to give up the judgment, to give up the ordering of thoughts. There's going to be nothing ever the screen will not just go away based on wishful thinking.  I don't want to see you anymore. I wish the world would just go away. Or that song we were in Taco Bell yesterday and we heard the song forever by Kenny Loggins and one of the lyrics and that was once I dreamed that you were gone. I cried, I tried to find you. I begged the dream to fade away and please awaken me. I begged the dream to fade away and please awaken me. No way. You think you think that dream is going to listen to these? You've got to see. I am the dream or the dream. I made up the dream. I don't have to beg the dream to fade away and please awaken me. There's no way that the dream is going to fade away and awaken me. I have to see that I'm the dream or the dream and say, I'll give a new purpose to this dream. And then when I give the Holy Spirit's purpose to the dream, then the dream will fade away and I will be awakened. But it's different than thinking that there's something outside myself that's going to magically swoop down. Rescue me to something. No way. There's no night and shining armor that's going to come from the so-called outside world or from the dream. That's the thing with Jesus. I mean, they think Jesus is some kind of a magical night and shining armor that is just going to come like in some of those interpretations of revelations. He's going to come down on his white horse and thank you, Jesus. Oh, it lasts you here to put an end to this terrible world. Take me, Lord. I've been good over there. Let the, let death get that one. They haven't been good to take me, you know. Jesus said in the Bible, many will say, Lord, Lord. He'll say, you know me not, you know, or I know you not. It has to be, it has to come back to seeing that the reason the world is in place, the reason there seems to be a world of separations because I'm still holding on to separation thoughts. I'm still judging. Jesus isn't going to come in time and swoop down on some horse and save the world. That's not how the world is going to be saved. So again, the first sentence, I have judged everything I look upon and it is this and only this I see. As long as the mind is judging, it's just looking upon a world of judgment that is produced by the ordering of thoughts. The world just.


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE, covering AWS re-invent 2019. Brought to you by Amazon Web Services and Intel, along with its ecosystem partners. Welcome back inside the Sands series for continuing our coverage here. Live on theCUBE of AWS re-invent 2019, absolutely jam-packed aisles, great educational sessions, and one of the feature presenters. Now joins us as well, is Dave Vellante, John Walls with Paul Seville, who's the SVP of Core Network and Technology Solutions at Sintri Lake. Paul, good to see you again. Yeah, nice to see you, John. So you just finished up, right? We'll get into that in just a little bit.  Yeah, I think it's fantastic. I mean, it's very high energy here. You know, there's a lot of new things that are emerging in terms of the applications that we're seeing, the use cases for the cloud. And of course, exciting stuff happened around Edge Compute with the announcement of AWS with the outpost launch. All right, so we'll jump into Edge. I mean, everybody has a different idea, right? So yours, I mean, if you define the Edge, at least how do you see it? Yeah, it's very simple definition of how we see the Edge. It's putting compute very close to the point of interaction. And the interaction can be with humans or the interaction can be with devices or other electronics that need to be controlled or that need to communicate. But the point is getting that compute as close as possible to it from a performance standpoint that's needed. Okay, good. So we heard that a lot from Andy Jassy, I think yesterday, right? Yeah. Bringing the compute to the data. I mean, with all due respect, it was talking about like it was a new concept, right? We've been hearing this now for quite some time. So talk more about how you see the Edge evolving. I mean, look, I get a lot of credit to Amazon because they used to not talk about hybrid. I predict a couple years soon that we're talking about multi-cloud, guarantee it, right? Because that's what customers are doing. So they respond to customers. So at the same time, I like their Edge strategy because it's all about developers. It's about infrastructure as code at the Edge. But you guys are about moving that data or not necessarily bringing the compute to that. So how do you see the Edge evolving? Yeah, so the reason this whole trend is happening is because what's happening with the new technologies that are enabling a whole new set of applications out there. Things like what's going on with artificial intelligence and machine learning and virtual reality, those, the robotics control, those things are basically driving this need to place compute as close as possible to that point of interaction. The problem is that when you do that, costs go up. And that's the conundrum that we've kind of been in because when compute gets housed at the customer premise, you know, in a home, in a business, in an enterprise, then that's the most expensive real estate that there is. And you can't get the economies of scale that's there. The only other choice to date has been the public cloud. And that can be hundreds or thousands of miles away. And these new applications that require really tight control and interaction can't operate in that kind of environment. And yet it's too expensive to run those applications at the very edge, at the premise itself. So that's why this middle ground now of a place in compute nearby where it can serve many locations or must be housed more cost-effectively as it can be placed. So you got the speed of light problem. So you deal with that latency by making the compute proximate to the data. But it doesn't have to be like right next to it. Correct. But what are we talking distance-wise? That to be synchronous distance or? Yeah, when we think of the distance, we think about it in terms of milliseconds of delay from where the edge device, the thing that needs to interact with the compute or the application needs to interact with. And we have not seen any applications that from the customers we talk to that really get beyond our need tighter than five milliseconds of delay. Now that's one way. So if we get into that range of place in compute within five milliseconds of the edge interaction, the device that it needs to interact with, that is enough to meet some of the most tightest requirements that we've seen around robotics control, video analytics and other applications. Okay, so I could ship code to the data, but the problem is if it needs to be real-time, it's still too much latency. And that's the problem that you're solving. That's right, okay. So what you were talking about, why milliseconds matter? That's right. So give me some examples, if you will, then about why five matters more than 10 or five matters more than eight or 20 or whatever. I mean, because we're talking about such an infinitesimal difference, but yet it does matter in some respects. It does because, so I'll give you an example of robotics, for example, robotics control. You know, that is one of the things that requires the most tight latency requirement, because it depends upon the robotics itself. If it's a machining tool that's working on a lathe, then that doesn't require as tight of response time to the controller as, say, a scanning device that is real-time pushing things around very fast and doing an optical read on it to make the decision about how, about where it pushes the device next. That type of interaction and control requires a much tighter latency performance, and that's why you start to see these ranges. But as I said, we're not seeing anything below that kind of five millisecond type of range. So the other thing that's changing, and it helped me understand this, yeah, okay, so you're moving the compute closer to the data, which increases cost, and I want to understand how you're addressing that. Well, maybe one of the ways you address it is because you're bringing the cloud model, the operating model to the data. So patches, security patches, maintenance, things like that are reduced. Is that how you're addressing cost? Yeah, that is part of it, and that's why the AWS Outpost is very interesting, because it is really a complete instance of AWS that is in a much smaller form factor that you can deploy very close to that point of interaction, close to the customer premise. And that enables customers to leverage the pretty much the full power of AWS in engaging with those devices and coding to those devices and dropping those applications close to it. Now you lose the multi-tenant aspect, is that right? Or not necessarily. Yeah, for our understanding of Outpost, it's a single-tenant device coming out the gate, but ultimately it's going to be a multi-tenant device. Yeah, okay, so near-term, it's easier to manage, but it's multi-instance, I guess. And then over time, maybe you can share that resource. It's still not going to... The interesting thing is that even though it's a single-tenant device, there are still many great use cases because even a single-tenant device in one market could serve multiple enterprise locations. So it still has that kind of a sense of scale because as long as it's one enterprise, it can serve many locations off of that one device. Okay, so you don't get the massive economies of scale, but you're opening up use cases that never existed before, right? That's right. But what do you do with when the data supply basically is, you know, you also make a data scale, and Edge devices creating that much more data, all of a sudden speed becomes a little more challenging because you're taking in a lot more information, trying to process it in different ways. Apps are feeding off of that. So all of a sudden, you have a much more complex challenge because it's not static, right? This is a very dynamic environment. That's right, yeah. And there's a very big trend that's happening now, which is that data is being created at the edge and it's staying at the edge for a whole number of reasons. You know, in the old world, you would pretty much collect data and you would ship it off to the centralized data center or to the public cloud to be housed there. And that's today, that's where 80% of data resides, but there's a big shift happening where that data now needs to reside at the deep edge because it needs to have that fast interaction with something that it's working with or because of government regulations that are now coming in that are having much stricter tolerances around you have to know exactly where your data is and it can't cross state lines. It can't get out of a certain security zone. Things like that are forcing companies now to keep that massive amount of data in a very understood known localized position. So you got to act on it in real time. Yes. Some of it will go back to the cloud, but you see folks persist the data at the edge or not so much? Persistent data? Do people want to store it at the edge as well? Yeah, people want to store it at the edge where it's going to have a lot of interaction. So if you're running a chemical plant, you may not need to have access to a lot of data outside that chemical plant, but you're intensively analyzing that data in the chemical plant and you don't want to ship it off some place centrally a thousand miles away to be access from there. It needs to be acted on locally. And that's why edge compute, this movement toward edge compute is really building and becoming stronger. Talk about your tech. You know, what's the real value of what you do?  You got to secure all this stuff, but maybe double check on it. Yeah, so centrally it brings a number of tools to help in this whole space. So first of all, the network that we provide that can tie it all together from the enterprise location to the edge location where compute can be housed all the way back to the public cloud core. We have a network that spans the entire U.S. fiber all over the place and we can use those low latency fiber optic connections to chain those areas together in the most optimal fashion to get the kind of performance that you need to handle these distributed compute environments. We also bring compute technology itself. We have our own variety of edge compute where we can build custom edge compute solutions for customers that meet their very specific spec requirements that can be dedicated to them. We can incorporate AWS's compute technology as well. And we have IT services and skilled people, thousands of employees that are focused on this space that build these solutions together for customers that tie together the public cloud resources, the edge compute resources, the network resources, the wireless connectivity capabilities that's needed on customer premise and the management solutions to tie it all together in that very mixed environment. We were just on a session with Teresa Carlson who runs Public Sector for AWS. I was telling her that I sat in a session, Marty Walsh, the mayor of Boston has got this big smart city initiative going on. I know that's one of the use cases you're working on. Maybe you talk about that a little bit and maybe some of the other interesting use cases that you're seeing. Yeah, that's right. Smart cities are a big use case though. The one, and we are actually actively working on a number of them. I would say that those use, the smart city use cases tend to move very slowly because you're talking about municipalities and long decision making cycle. I'll tell you though, we've seen. There's a 50 year plan he put forth. Yeah, that's right. But the use cases that we're really seeing the most traction with, or interestingly, is robotics is a really big one. And video analytics is another big one. So we're actually deploying edge use case solutions right now in those scenarios. The robotics one is a great one because those devices need to be, those robotic devices need to be controlled within a really tight millisecond tolerance. But the compute needs to be housed in a very, it's much more reliable economic location. The video analytics piece is a really interesting, the one that we're seeing very big demand for because retailers have now reached the point with the technology where they can do things like they can figure out by doing video analytics whether somebody is acting suspiciously in the store. And we're hearing that they think they can now cut thievery out of retail locations dramatically by using video analytics. And when you talk about big savings to the bottom line of a company, that makes a big savings to them. So those are very two good use cases we're seeing that are real today. You know, one of the other things you were talking about earlier was about the disappearance of compute divide. That's right. So where to go? I mean, what? Yeah, well, I'll tell you what, I like to say that in the old days, you know, if you've been around long enough, like I know you're old enough because I was a kid watching you on TV when I was a little kid. He knows that. He told us that. But the, Way back. When we got out of college. How does that make you feel? Really old. When we got out of college, John, everything was in a mainframe, right? It was essentially, when you went to work, and everything was housed centrally, then we went to distributed where a client server model where everybody was working on desktops and a lot of the compute was on the desktops and very little went back to a mainframe. Then we made the shift to the cloud where we put as much in the centralized location as we can to, and so we shifted way back to centralized. That's the compute divide. I'm talking about that big shift from decentralized, decentralized, decentralized. Now we're actually moving to a new world where that pendulum swing, that compute divide is disappearing because compute isn't most economically stored any one location. It's everywhere. It's going to be at the IoT edge. It's going to be at the premise. It's going to be in market locations that were centralized. It's going to be in the public cloud core. It's going to be all around us. And that's what I mean by the, by the disappearance of the compute divide. And you know, I want to come back on that. You talk about a pendulum. A lot of people talk about the pendulum swings, mainframe and distributed now. A lot of people say it's the pendulums are swinging back, but you just described it differently. It's a ubiquitous matrix now where compute is everywhere. That's where you hear this term fog computing. The idea of the fog now, it's not the cloud that you can see off in a distance. It's just everywhere around you. And that's how compute, we can start to think about how compute is. I think I first heard that term, I don't know, eight years ago. I'm like, what the heck is this? It was ahead of its time. But now it's really starting to show. I mean, this is sort of new expansion of what we know as cloud. It's sort of redefining. Yes, exactly. And then edge 5G, that's another big piece of it. Amazon's obviously excited about that with the thing to call it wavelength, right? What do you see for 5G? How's that going to affect this whole equation? Yeah, I think 5G is going to have a number of edge applications. And it's primarily going to be around the mobile space. You know, the advantage of it is that it increases bandwidth and it supports mobility. And it allows for a little bit higher resilience because they can take the part of the spectrum and make sure that they're carving it out and dedicating it for particular applications that are there. But I tell you that the, you know, 5G gets a lot of attention in terms of being how edge compute is going to roll out, but we're not seeing that at all. Edge compute is available today. And that, we're providing those edge compute solutions through our fiber optic networks. What we're seeing is that every enterprise that we're talking to, wants fiber into their enterprise location. Because once you have fiber there, that's going to be the most secure, reliable and scalable solution. Fiber can effectively scale as big as any customer could ever consume the bandwidth. And they know that once they get fiber into that application, into their location, that they're good for the future because they can totally scale with that. And that's how we're deploying edge solutions today. Well Paul, I know you got a plane to catch and you got to go, but after that age comment, we're going to keep you here for another hour. Thanks again. It's great to see you again. Always good to see you. Thanks, thank you. All right, Paul, hang on, hang on. We're about to say goodbye to Paul. Now we will. We have his reinvent. 2019 coverage continues right here on theCUBE. All right.


I'm excited. I think we had a great camp. I think we've been preparing for this moment. You know, I speak on a defense have I think we've been having the energy and like I said we've been preparing and getting ready for this moment. I think guys excited guys excited to actually take it to the next level this season. I think that's what we try to build and that's been in the culture. You know, we can't and I honestly I don't even know how it was last year because that's not my mind right now. My mindset is how can we be better this year and on the defense side that just you know flying around communicate you know the thing that's we we wasn't as good as last year on third down whatever it may be be better on first and second down and just the foundation of all defense you know effort and finish full tilt to the top and I think that's the foundation on defense and that's kind of what we live up to you know communicating and get every all 11 hats to the ball.  They eventually you know they get paid like we get paid. They might make a big play. They might score a touchdown. One thing about it. We'll come to the sideline. We're gonna fix it. We're gonna get back on the field. Get a three and out. Get a turnover. Whatever it may be. Hopefully we can get a score on defense but you know that's the one thing we can't do. We got a like very talk about one of the kids this week you know and not on the defense but keeping pause you know having pause you know just keeping that you know mindset on the sideline that we're not gonna panic and that's one thing we gotta take into the season. Whatever may happen control with control next play mentality. Well of course they got a quarterback that you know he could make a lot of plays not just with their arm but you know he could run the ball as well you know. I think he was one of the lead the Russia last year and we know that they don't have design run from for him. You know I think the main thing this this week being able to play as one defense. The defense line have to be able to rush together. We have to make sure that we contain number one and that's the goal this week. Contain number one affect him affect their run you know eventually get to the quarterback on third down so I don't think is I don't think it's something that I'm looking forward to get frustrated about. I think it's something that we're looking forward to you know accepting the challenge I should say. I think our defense line and the outside line backers we ready I mean this is what we've been working for you know Monday we had a great practice especially just getting a head start on the guys knowing what type of quarterback we're getting there to face and that's and then just not going to take me you know it's not going to take just one big guy in the room it's going to take all of us I very about we say we're not trying to kill him we're just trying to caption you know and I think that's kind of answer your questions just try to capture him and not try to kill him when you get ahead of him. Like I said this will be working for our camp you know guys been communicating the rushes up front we have to work together and I think we've been doing that great discount now just time to put it in action in this season like I said the week of preparation go make you more confident for the game on Sunday and I think the way that we going and we're looking forward to have a great press today we're just going to keep building that confidence towards the game and I think that's something that you know Covray been doing a good great job about our coach been doing a great job of you know helping us prepare to win and I think that's what that one our team you know focus on this year you know you know through camp is you know I can't get better in camp but now it's time to prepare to win and I think that the coach is putting us in a great position to win we're going to practice each and every day trying to be the best you know fix the little things and I think that's what we're in the game the small things and we're preparing to win so I think with the same offerings they had from last year I mean I think we got a great idea of kind of what they're gonna do of course you know they're gonna come out with you know some stuff that we haven't saw in film but what's been two weeks before I mean our last preseason game I think just by being able to get a head start on them we kind of know some of the things they're gonna do like I said of course they're gonna come out and do something we haven't saw but that's part of the game we come on the sideline and kind of adjust to it and hopefully we don't get you know hit with it again


Good morning from Palm Springs we um this is our parking spot last night we're in between two I don't know two restaurants that went out of business whoa look at how close we are to the mountains also um do you know what a Hari Krishna is Aria yeah I mean you're not too far off right now bro Welcome to the bus I feel like one yeah uh by the way this guy is amazing he's so hilarious it's just you never know what's going to come out of his mouth you never know what he's going to do you never know what song he's going to sing today's a beautiful day Steven Alexi across the street um we're going to go check out well you'll see it's going to be amazing there is a uh glass house up on the hillside if you can see it right there um and we didn't know that you need an email confirmation reservation in advance so we are frantically emailing the designer owner of this place trying to see if we can get his attention in like the next half an hour uh to see it so we don't really know what's going on what what do you guys think the chances are uh I'm not trying just going through something to be like hey yeah these people are really annoying me yeah but see there's other people coming here too we should maybe say that we're with them uh hey good to see you you're late after about a half an hour looks like we are giving up for right now we uh Ari and I are heading east over to back to Jamie's van build but uh this is the camera goodbye we already gave hugs and things very nice hanging with you guys yes and also their links will be in the description so if you want to check out what Steve does and Alexia you can check that out um this one he more kind of plays with rocks in the dirt uh van build part I can't see anything who's that hey Andy and Melissa hey Andy and Melissa you guys can't even see them out there because it's so dark but take my word they're right there um I would show you guys around camp it's completely dark out here um I'm just gonna relax call it a night I'm exhausted Ari is still working hard over there on louis edits all right see you guys um but yeah we'll walk around camp real quick and say hi to some people and then uh yeah we'll see you around tomorrow


Esther Dyson, ICANN's first board chair from 1998 to 2000. Esther, what were the biggest challenges you've faced in those early years? Well, the biggest challenges were kind of everything. First of all, we were created with this immaculate conception behind which were the Europeans and the Americans, but in theory we were this upswelling of the internet community. Immaculate conception, I don't quite know what you mean. Yeah, well, the idea was nobody was supposed to be the hand that made it happen, it was supposed to be the will of the internet community. So it was honestly a polite fiction and everybody knew that, some people grumbled about it, some didn't, but in theory, there was no one to look to. In practice it would have been John Postel, who had previously run the IANA function and all the stuff that became ICANN. But he died completely unmisterously and unfortunately of complications after heart surgery. So instead of the guy widely considered sort of the saint of the internet, I mean he was a real guy and irascible like all of them, but there was this Saint John, the thing was actually, if you like, instantiated by a lawyer called Joe Sims, who I hope you also talk to, who I'm very, very fond of him, but he was sort of the wrong person for this job. He was a corporate litigator if you'd successfully sued Coca-Cola and stuff like that, but not exactly your spirit of the internet guy. So let's jump back to Postel for a second. So did his kind of sudden and unexpected death reshape ICANN, cause problems? Yeah, it certainly did. It reduced the legitimacy we had in the eyes of the quote internet community. Put it this way, Joe Sims wasn't a puppeteer, but at the same time he was writing the legal documents that instantiated this basic idea that there should be an internet coalition of all parties that would set up a regulatory body, whether the rules would have been much different. Certainly the sense of who was doing it was completely different, and Joe was a lawyer. So it sounds like, Esther, you're challenging the very concept of an internet community. Yes, I am. I mean, the community definitely exists, but it's not actively engaged the way, on the one hand, corporations or registries and registrars and lawyers. It's the usual problem with democracy in whatever form. It's kind of messy. It's messy, but more than that, the special interests are at the table because they're representing special interests and they're paid to do that. The general public interest, nobody is being paid by the public to represent the public interest. And it's a problem we have in democracy writ large as well. The special interests always spend more time in Congress or in the Russian Duma or wherever you want than sort of your average person whose job is living their life so they don't have time and they don't have money to go to these meetings and speak. So there's always going to be some kind of intermediary body which may or may not actually represent their interests. And in our case, we had some of the so-called at-large were being paid by network solutions. You touched on a point I want to follow up on, Esther. In 2002, you told a publication at Wharton Business School, we had engineers who thought ICANN was a plot to give certain companies control of the Internet. U.S. congressmen figuring it was a plot to give foreigners control. Public interest people.  Excuse me. Public interest people saying it should be run by a group of wise men and people from Latin America and Africa who just assumed they would be left out again. Now you said that. You gave Wharton that quote about four years after the formation of ICANN. Upon reflection all these years later, is it still an accurate perception? Well, I mean now a lot of time has changed. But at the time, yes, everybody thought it was a plot by somebody else to rest control from their hands. And in a sense, the genius of the U.S. government was to create something that was sort of to protect this vacuum of power by giving ICANN very little power. The great thing about it was the less it did, the better it was. He who governs least governs best. The challenge is, of course, everybody wanted to come into the vacuum and fill it with their own particular interests. So how did you handle that, that very point right there? We tried to do very little, but at the same time we did have our first big mission other than setting ourselves up was to break the network solutions monopoly and create a broader community of registries and registrars. And then there was the second, not so much a monopoly, but an artificial constraint, which was how many TLDs there were. And that's where ultimately I changed my mind from, there should be a free market as many as you want. But the reality is that reduces, it just creates a mess. Then you might as well not have TLDs, and that's something, of course, we're facing right now. The creation of a few more so that .com was sort of the commercial monopoly. That was probably a good idea. But in the end, the problem is not the shortage of domain names. It's the shortage of space in people's minds. So you can cut the space up into ever smaller, smaller little chunks and create a sort of protection racket, you're not really solving the problem of how do people find a particular thing on the internet. And the reality is the more stuff there is, the less useful the domain name system is anyway. And you can look at the numbers. Most people go to a website by typing in its name. They don't type in the domain name. And then Google figures nine out of ten people want ican.org, not ican.info or .biz. And if you want something different, your browser remembers that the last time you typed this thing in you did not take the first choice. You took the 14th choice so that, in a sense, the more domain names there are, the more powerful Google and the other search engines become. Let's jump back to those early days. Given what a weird duck ICANN was, given how unusual it was, you talked about the various voices that wanted to be heard. I'm still curious as to how you, who were basically in charge of this, how you maneuvered this, how you made this work. So first of all, I wasn't in charge. Mike Roberts was more in charge because that was his day job. On the other hand, you'll talk to him and he'll tell you, I wasn't in charge either. And in a sense, nobody was. The board was, it was presiding whether or not it was in charge. And it was trying to, we were trying to create community, we were trying to create buy-in and legitimacy. How difficult was that? Well, that was very difficult because the USG not wanting to be too visible or too controlling, we had a very limited budget. We had, of course, I don't remember the numbers, but it was very limited. And we spent a lot of money on lawyers and got some pro bono fighting network solutions. You can be open in the sense of people can ask you questions and still be very closed in the sense of it takes a lot of money or effort to be there to ask those questions. And there's a sort of, there's passive openness, which is you don't try to be secret. And then there's active openness, which is you actively tell people what's going on. And this is one thing where I would say probably there was, ironically, one of the biggest fights that was emblematic of a lot of other stuff. And here I had fierce disagreement with Joe Sims. Our board meetings were closed. And you basically thought that the board meetings should not be closed? Yeah, I thought they should be open because believe me, we weren't going to be able to do anything secret anyway. And it was just a question of creating trust and hey, the internet culture is based on transparency. It was crazy. And one of our Dutch director said, well, if you close the meetings, we'll just make all the decisions at dinner the night before. And unfortunately, he said it in public and though it was in a sense true, it was certainly, there's a difference between being, telling the truth versus telling the lie and being really undiplomatic in what you say. Sure. You know, people do talk outside of board meetings. They should. But to the extent you deliberate, again, nothing's perfect, but you should have the fundamental policy of we hold our discussions and we set policy within the board meeting and we do that in the open so that people can see the disagreements and they can see how the decisions were arrived at. So that was really unfortunate. Because ICANN was such an unusual organization and there was unprecedented in a kind of way, what was the greatest challenge in trying to build this organization? Well, again, the challenges were multiple. But let me take you back a little bit. The board was selected with the exception of Jun Marai to be people who were not active in this broad community. They weren't registries, registrars. They were not supposed to be people who had been part of some partisan discussion beforehand. And so I was part of the internet community, but I wasn't a partisan. Most of the rest of them really were not internet people at all. They didn't use the internet. Trying to get a board that people felt they knew something was one challenge. The whole thing with network solutions was another challenge because they were trying to just delegitimize us totally. We were short of budget. The guy who represented the internet, John Pastel, had died. Wow. When you list the problems like that, it sounds like it almost was against all odds that ICANN succeeded. Well, no, it was against a bunch of odds. But at the same time, it was clear that something like that needed to exist. And I think everybody felt, well, let's not destroy it. Let's maybe try and pull it in our direction. But yeah, this thing is needed because there's got to be some place where you can go to resolve disputes. There's got to be some place to set policy. And if we want more TLDs, there needs to be an organization that will do it. And so that need was widely recognized. The need was widely recognized. There was something that started out as this little server with a bunch of names on it.  It's as if you went, imagine you're on the moon and you have a little air conditioner and then you build out the territory and suddenly you have hundreds of buildings. Yeah, you kind of want to protect that air conditioner and as it grows, make sure that there was somebody in charge of it that was broadly trusted and that would do the sensible thing. You might still have the desire for it to air condition your part of the territory better than the other guys or you might have some preference for temperature. But in the end, you want something that you can go to that is managing this resource on behalf of everybody. Let me follow up on something. I actually like that metaphor. I just thought of it. Let me ask you something that you just said. You said that many people on the board were not of a technical background. When ICANN is basically an oversimplified sense, a technical coordination body, how problematic was that? The lack of tech-specific knowledge wasn't the problem. It was the lack of sort of the matter. How does the internet work? Where is it heading? How do people use it?  Within the board itself, you were the board chair, was it difficult to bring the board to a point of consensus on any particular matter? I'm curious as to what it was like in those early days for you in your function as chair. So, again, to set the context, it's a joke, but it's true. I was the only one who volunteered. Everybody else was busy because they were, in fact, doing something else. I was writing a newsletter and had a conference about the internet. So for me, this was like, yeah, this could be my day job. So I was ready to jump in, not to work full-time, but it was completely relevant to what I cared about. So I became the chairman, but I didn't have any particular gravitas versus the rest of them. But it was, I mean, they were all well-meaning. It was a, Hans was a little more stubborn. But fundamentally, it was more a consensus than a voting board. Was it sex-ling? Oh, yeah. It was intensely interesting. It was extremely frustrating. The whole thing with the at-large, not really functioning very well was really disappointing because I really do feel that the users were kind of being ignored vis-a-vis the people, the government people on the one hand, the regulators, the business community at large, and then the specific registrar, the business community that made their money selling domain names and related services versus the companies that bought them. There was just a lot of people pretending to represent the at-large. There was, of course, the legitimate complaints from people in Africa and Asia and that they weren't being represented. And at the same time, there were people who would show up at these ICANN meetings who would be like deputy assistant secretary of the subcommittee of the council on blah-blah-blah internet.  And they really had nothing to add. And I just found that sort of offensive. Elaborate on that? Well, a lot of people came. It was sort of like a honeypot of, you know, here's a really interesting meeting you can go to somewhere very interesting around the world and you can have something fancy on your business card. So it sounds like what you're telling me when I'm hearing you say is the challenge was to get the end user who didn't have great resources to get them involved to hear their voices? Yeah, not to get them involved. A billion of them showed up. That would be a little crowded. But somehow to get them better represented and at the same time not to bring in all these people who are really just feeding off the... They might have had a vested interest or... Well, I mean, they were... Some had a vested interest in what ICANN did but many just had a vested interest in their government sending them on a pleasure trip to some interesting board meeting location. Esther, let me ask you this. Looking back after all these years, is there something that you wish you guys had done differently? I could wish the whole thing had been different but in the end I would say most of it kind of unfolded almost inevitably. I mean, certainly the whole thing could have been more elegant but the fundamental conflicts between governments who wanted to have ICANN be a vacuum of power and governments who wanted to use it to exert their power to turn it into something closer to the ITU or a censorship bureau, those were all kind of, I would say, ordained by history. It's become a very lucrative business that at the same time is extremely competitive and there's lots of shady domain name practices, the level of that goes up and down. I would have liked to see ICANN regulating fraud and sleazy business more effectively. It's mostly, thank God, kept out of the censorship business which many governments have tried to make it do. In the end I'd rather have somebody taking money out of my pocket than somebody shutting my mouth so I'm happy. On that note, Esther, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us. We appreciate it. Thank you.


Alright, let's take a look at another example of addition. So we'll add 3, 5, 3, 3 base 8 plus 2, 7, 6 base 8. And I'll set up a place value chart. And because I'm working in base 8, each unit is going to be 8 of the next smaller unit.  If I need more, I'll just add additional columns at the end, but I'll set them up this way. And my rightmost column is my ones. Eight of these will form the next, so eight ones, I'll call them eight. My next column is going to be eight, eights. Well, I don't really care what these are. Again, we don't actually need to know what these units are. We don't need to really know how big they are. All we need to know is that there's a trade rate, eight of anything, is one in the next place over. So I don't really need to know the names, and I'll just omit them. And I'll set down my add ends. And again, I'll add, staying within each place. And again, for convenience, I'll use my familiar symbols for the higher numbers, even though in base 8 these symbols don't really exist. And it doesn't really matter the order that I add in. So I'll add from left to right, that's 3, 7, 10, and 9. And then I'm going to bundle sets of eight. Now it didn't matter which order I added, but it's convenient if I bundle in trade from right to left. And again, the reason for that is sometimes we'll get extra things in a column from the next place over. So if we go from left to right, we may have to retrace some of our steps. So starting with the rightmost column, 9, again I'm looking for sets of eight. So 9 is an 8 and 1, so I'll bundle, there's my 9, and trade 8 gives me one of the next place over. And I'll combine these two. And I'll look for that bundle, 11 is 8 and 3, there's my bundle, and I'll trade. And I'll add, combine, and that's an 8. I'll bundle, well 8 is itself a bundle, and there's going to be nothing left over, so I'll trade and combine, and I can read off my number for 0, 3, 1, base 8.