Well, the internet's so slow, because I'm streaming video. I can't do anything. That is true. We're both streaming from the same place. Luckily, I got files, but you're over the wireless. I could give you a wire next time we do this. Now, let me pick my news. I'll put this in the window over here. What else can I do? I can end the broadcast. I have zero viewers. I can turn the video on audio on and off. I can add it. Oh, we got someone. There's someone here. Whoever it is, you get to see what Geek Nights looks like before Geek Nights happens. And it looks really creepy when I look at the monitor where the broadcast is, because my eyes are all the way to the right on the screen. All right, I'll stop looking at that.  Yeah, I'll stop looking at that. I kind of want to, I have to talk about the Google case at least a little bit. It's over, we've talked about it already. No, it is over. We didn't talk about it, the final answer on API is not big. We talked about it already. Well, we talked about what will happen if one way or the other, but now we know the answer. I want to spend two minutes on it. I just want to be like, Google One, API is not copyrightable, it's a noteworthy thing. Since there's people here, let's say. See, you have to be able to just minimize the window. Doesn't need to be open, just close that shield. This is your problem. It's not even distracted by people and I was affecting the show, just minimizing the window. It's not the show, this is the pre-roll. Yeah, OK, just minimize the window and don't look at it. Is this any different from what we normally do? Yes. So. Just minimize and don't look at it. All right, let's see, I need, I'll do the, I'll mention the Google thing. You can express your disdain if you want, but I'm doing it anyway. You want to talk about the spy telescope, so I can make that my news. OK, I told you it was my news. OK. And I'll do, all right, the CapCopter, that's cool. The Perkylosis thing is interesting, but I don't have anything to add to it. The Continental Drift thing is cool, but not cool enough. That's for the main bit. Wee, I got to say, for Tuesday. I just don't know how anyone can. That's until after the E3.  I'm just saying, I don't know how anyone can be excited about the Wii U personal controller. I mean, they've had two attempts at this and didn't do anything with it. If I was the boss in Nintendo, you know which one they didn't make? Well, we'd have one. We'd force the Pokemon MMO. Yeah, I'd just be like, look guys, here's what we're going to do. Number one, we're going to make Nintendo software, not just for Nintendo things. We're going to make it for everything. And number two, we're going to make our things be open and not suck. Number three, I'd hire as many people as possible and force them to make games that use the open cable equivalent. I'd be like, and also we're going to make more games. You guys make too few games, a lot more games. There needs to be frigging stuff all the time with the games. And none of these, oh, we don't have enough games coming out. Let's just re-release an old game for the new system bullshit, right? New Mario Tennis, new Metroid, new, you know? Well, we need a new Mario Tennis. Of course, new everything. And everything awesome, at the same time.  Well, there's kind of trouble. They make too many of those middling sort of ad games, like Kirby canvases. Like, all right, it's not bad, but it's like. Well, I guess my trouble is that the games. It's sort of like an ad game. Every game to Nintendo games should be like, oh, snap. Well, what about games like Minish Cap? That were great, but they're great for someone who's not good at games and hasn't really played a lot of Zelda games. No, every game. Every game? Every game should be awesome. Everybody. Ta-dee-do-dooda. All right, I think I will talk about the. Now that the TLDs are happening, we didn't really talk about Google's the domains they're going after. I still think this is a huge mistake allowing the TLDs.  Oh, let's see. It's like, I don't think you should allow these rocket cars on the road. It's only the roads full of rocket cars. Well, even though I disagree, I don't think rocket cars should be allowed. I have to get one now if I plan to drive, because they're all over the place.  And that's what happens. The thing is, I feel like, well, I'll talk about them in the show. I'll make it my news. It's a bad idea, guys. But now I'm forced to go along with this bad idea. So you want to get .gignites? It's all you pay for the old TLD. You pay for it. Digital luxury services for a car. Oh my god. Really? Really? All right. Give me one second to do some investigative journalism. Is there any reading someone else's article? No. Oh my god. No, this is not someone else's article. This is someone else's SEO-spammed website that is now the number one thing that appears if you search for this. Oh, good god. Let me read this. I can't from this time around. Demons. One's just critical. I just read online systems. Time to shoot. And the exact same time. You know what? I'm going to leave this Google thing and do it in the Chrome. OK. Google likes the Chrome. Sierra, you're out. Maybe it'll be faster. All right. Well, let me get the show ready. Let's just start. My computer will be dying. I got plenty of OpenE, because I'm going to Toronto tomorrow. I don't want to go to Toronto. I can't overwrite the other show we didn't upload, because we didn't upload it yet. Google+, how do I log into you? You're always trying to get me to go to this people you know. Because they really want you to add more people that you know. I'm more annoyed that Google Voice is the one thing that's not listed with all the other things when I log into my main Google account. All right. Auditions ready? I got an OpenE, I got a news. CatCopter is pretty good. That's going to be my thing. I'm going to find the article on the Google thing, so I can talk about it for like two minutes. Google Java. You ready to go? Otherwise, let's do this. All right. I had it set for an emulator, so let me set it back. There we go. Much better. Much better. OK. It's Monday, June 4th, 2012. I'm rim. And this is Deep Nights. Tonight, Government Hackers. Is that your thing of the day? No. It should be. Just look at it for a minute. That's pretty good. OK. So this is the second episode of Geek Nights that we did, but isn't online yet, because our new website is not complete. It's actually complete, except for the part of the upload. That works. Except for the podcast part. It actually works. Except for that part of Geek Nights. Except, no, it actually, hard drive, space saving mechanism does not work. So what's taking up all the space, because the episodes aren't there? The episode. But I thought we put all the episodes on our lips in. On the computer, when they are ID3 tagged and such. Ah, but why don't we have a cron job that deletes them after? I don't know. Because then the database will become very confused when they're. So it archives both the local file and the. That is the default behavior, where Jango keeps the files in S3. So I take it the database doesn't have the old 2005 episodes, because they're not local. I still need to dump that database, but I digress. So I can do my auto back up to my local NAS and make the torrent I want to make of every episode of Geek Nights from 2005 to like now. Because I can host it here if one person downloads it, whatever, I have plenty of bandwidth. If 100 people download it, BitTorrent takes care of that. Yeah, I don't think that would be good enough. Exactly. But as long as, basically, it'll never hurt my bandwidth more than, we'll see. We'll see what actually happens. I was trying to calculate. I realized it's more complex to calculate, because I'm still seeding for the people and depending on the algorithm, but anyway. But yeah, I've got to miss our burning wheel game tomorrow, and almost didn't do a show today, because I just got back from Istanbul, and now I've got to go to Toronto. I don't want to go to Toronto. Mostly because the children have cigarette faces, friends. Mostly I'm flying like porter air. Apparently, I didn't know this, right? Because we lived near Toronto. We just, like, drive there. But there's an airport in the middle of Toronto, like on this island, and there's one airline that flies to this tiny little airport. So I'm going to fly to this tiny little airport, which means I've got to leave from Newark over here. You can fly to Rogers, here, which is amazing. And then what? Take the slow ferry? Is that thing even still there? I don't know what happened. I'm going to see if that thing's still there, because that was, if the word boondoggle ever described a thing, it is that thing. There are things that are much more. How about that empty hotel in North Korea? All the multiple empty, unfinished buildings in various communist nations. Ah, but that is not boondoggle. That is simply communism. Maybe communism is the biggest boondoggle there. Possibly. But then which brand of communism? Red communism. Not, you know, Pilgrims or, OK, theism part. So what do you got for me? It's Monday. It's Tuesday. Why would I have it for you? I don't have anything for you. Nothing for you. I have a news to read for the listeners of the show. All right, news away. News away. So, you know, NASA, it's been a hot topic lately ever since the space shuttle cancelling and the SpaceX increase in the first commercial space vessel made it to the unmanned, made it to the space station. I was really excited about that. It is pretty cool.  How it used to be like a few percent of government spending, and now it's half a percent of the budget.  That is not NASA. So, you know, everyone's like, raise the NASA budget to just one percent. Come on. But that way one whole penny will go to them. That doesn't look like it's happening, but nerves are yelling for it. So it turns out that one of the things NASA has been working on for a long time is replacing the Hubble Telescope, which is a pretty awesome thing. And we went up to repair it a whole bunch of times. But it's expensive to maintain. Wait a minute, a whole bunch of times? How many times did we go up there and do anything to it? Pretty sure we went up there and fixed it two or three times. OK, anyway. I'm just based on memory of news and stuff. But then I don't have numbers. You can go read Wikipedia, Hubble Space Telescope, and find out. But anyway, it's not doing too well. It's kind of old and crummy. We could do a lot better pretty easily. And there's a project to do that that NASA is sort of spending too much money or time on, called, what's it called? It is called the James Webb Space Telescope, right? It's been eating up the science budget. So apparently, the Washington Post just reported, the Department of Defense just gave two better-than-hubble telescopes to NASA. Like, here you go. So we just had these lying around. We just had these lying around unused. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. So clearly, what these are are spy telescopes that are so obsolete, or spy satellites at least. And the reason they had extra ones is because they were the spares, right? And the real one must have been, right? So if these are spares, because the Department of Defense always makes spares of everything. What was the quote from our contact? Why build one when you could have two at twice the price? So if these are spares that are on the ground, that means that you know they had one in space, and they had at least another spare in space. So there's multiples of these things. They're just turned around the wrong way. And if they're giving the ground the never-used spares to NASA, that means that the ones in space are like they're done with those. And they put up new ones already, or maybe this speculation, like all maybe since they have drones that are better, they don't need the space telescopes to spy anymore, or all kinds of stuff.  Well, you have to swap out the sensors, at least. I mean, you're looking for different stuff with space telescopes. If we had a space shuttle, we could have gone up there and fixed it. The thing is, this is just a really fascinating story, because it highlights so many of the high-level arguments that nerds have around the military and space and everything, that the military has so much money that they got just extras, the thing that NASA just can't find enough money to build. But it's actually a lot more complex than that. Yeah, but one of the major defenses of defense spending is that, look, it brings about all these great things like internet and such like that, with the great research that we do.  But the problem is, is that those things, all too often, they keep citing all these examples of those things eventually becoming consumer-grade goods or used by other people outside the military, things that were invented in the military, like the internet. But apparently, the thing is, when you invent something in the military, their primary goal, even though those things may happen, their primary goal is defense and also offense, even though they call themselves defensive offense goals. A whole lot of offense. And in games of defense and offense, when you invent something new and awesome, you've got to keep it secret. Otherwise, the other guy has it now, and you're in big trouble. Well, it depends. For example, in software design, say you have an interface that's really cool. For some software, it's really cool. You can show it to people like they see it, and maybe they'll try to copy it. Now, if your idea was not actually, like, there wasn't that novel, then they could just copy it from the interface, and they've got the same thing as you. Your thing was worthless. But if the back-end architecture is the real important part, then they can see it all they want. They still can't copy it. Yeah. But the fact that they know you have it, for example, something like a spy satellite telescope, right? Just because they're knowing it exists. But they can look into space, figure out where it is. So, yeah, you say that, but then game theory, that information itself becomes part of the equation. So you make them know that you have this Uber weapon, even if you don't, for example. Or you let them know, yeah, we can see everything you're doing above ground with these satellites. So the point is you're not going to start giving the technology for this space satellite to people outside of the military who are just like at NASA or whatever, who might leak it, or who knows what. Or to just people on the streets that they can make their own. What that implies is that there is not that much special about these compared to what the military is using now. Exactly. And this is why we should take, even though putting money into defense can result in research and new inventions that eventually might be used by us. I see where you're going with this. You should instead take that money and just give it to research directly that's open in public research. I'm going to make the argument of I wouldn't necessarily say instead, because that begs the question that the value of the defense spending for the purposes of defense is not there. No, because here's the thing that makes it work. It's like, oh, let's say we had given the money to invent the even better space satellite that we probably have to NASA. And NASA had invented the even better space satellite that we could have. Well, first of all, that knowledge of how to make that awesome thing and it being used for space research would have resulted in way more benefits than just looking at terrorists and walking around somewhere. And two, it's not like the Defense Department wouldn't have it also. They would still just get it from the NASA and still have to spend the size satellite necessary. I think it comes down more to the logistics, Scott, of how the money is allocated. I mean, how much of that money do you think is allocated to pure research in the military versus here's a specific task and intent? And even if, so NASA invented the space thing instead of the Defense Department inventing it, therefore everyone in the whole world knows how to make one. But, sure, great, everyone knows how to make one. And we've got them. You still don't know how many we've got, where they are, what we're doing with them. Yeah, well, Scott, I guess the argument against this is that I'm still not convinced. Anyone else who wants to make one, it's not like they can afford to make one anyway, even if they do have. So you rephrased what I said before, and you added a little bit more nothing to it. I don't think you just made a compelling argument, because these satellites, one, they weren't a technology problem, they're an engineering problem. And they were made for a specific purpose. I think NASA's biggest problem is that there wasn't a very public, very direct goal that they were working toward with the majority of their effort. Yeah, they were. They were just suckin'. What was their goal? The James Webb Space Telescope was supposed to replace the Hubble, but it's been way over budget and not due to it. Yeah. So you realize, Scott, these satellites that the military is giving them still have to be completely retooled to do the science thing that NASA wants to do, because the military has no reason to do that part. It is still much easier making a whole new thing. Yeah, Scott, you realize the military made these satellites for one purpose. The only really useful part of it, as far as I can gather from the articles I read on this for NASA, is that the satellite itself is already made. But it's not a special satellite. The special part is the part NASA's going to add and make to it, which is the actual sensors and everything. What I'm saying is if that money that was given to the Defense Department to make these things in the first place have to give it to NASA in the first place, it would have gone the other way, and we would have had them in both departments for a much longer period of time. Maybe or maybe not, because we don't know what other fruit came out of the research in the military privately. Yeah, so it would have been even more fruit going both ways, because any NASA invent. Wait, wait, wait. So your argument is we don't know, so therefore clearly it must have been more. OK, I'm giving them less. It might be. How could it be less? I'm saying that we don't know enough about what the money is actually spent on to have a discussion about that. I'm generally. What is it if the Defense Department invents something? Did they invent something, Scott? Yes, but did they invent something, or is this just engineering? They made some satellites. Sure, they had money to make a satellite. If they had money to make that, if that money was given to NASA, we could have had both defense satellites and NASA satellites, but instead we only have defense ones. Well, apparently no. We have both, because they gave them to NASA. Yeah, like extra what? Maybe they had some purpose for it. We had to have them a long time ago, right? Maybe or maybe not. We don't really know. I mean, the military probably had them for a bit for something. No, they're not giving it to NASA, it's not old. Yeah, the thing is, nothing I've read says that these are particularly novel technology for satellites. It's just that they already made them. Anyway, so we don't really need to dwell on it, but I'm sure you've heard the news. Google won APIs. No, we didn't, because the ruling had not been made the last time we did the show. Oh, big difference. Yeah, because of the case before, the jury had ruled on some of the points about fair use and whatever, but what had not been ruled on was the thing that the judge had to decide. Basically, the case went like this. Jury, tell us if Google infringed, and if fair use is a defense. Independently of that answer, the judge got to say whether or not it even mattered. Whether or not APIs are even copyrightable. And I bring it up again partly because this is a case of a judge who said, look, this is a technology thing. I'm going to learn the technology. And he basically told the Oracle lawyer. When the Oracle lawyer tried to argue that this API and this shared code was so hard to make and so many millions of dollars in damages, the judge basically said, look, I learned how to do this and wrote the code that you say is so hard to make in a couple hours.  The thing that I, an old judge guy, figured out kind of on my own in my spare time. And the Oracle guy's response was basically, well, I'm not an expert on computers. Then why are you lawyering computers? But no, this is important because this is one of the times where the courts actually, there is no complaint from a nerd on how this all shook down. Except for the fact that it shouldn't even happen in the first place, because these patents shouldn't exist in the first place. How much time and money do we waste? But in this case, it was about copyright. And copyright now, we have a ruling. You cannot copyright an API. That's really important. Had that gone the other way, it would have been trouble. But no, the real thing I want to talk about is we complained from the beginning, and this was first a thing, that this expansion of the top level domains in DNS is a bad idea. There's so many reasons it's a bad idea. But it's happening anyway. There's not much we can do about it. So I wonder what the actual end result is going to be. Because Google, at least, sees this for what it is. And they got like .google. They're doing what every big company's forced to do now, getting .the company name. But Google also went for .lol. And I have a feeling if anyone is going to do the right thing with .lol, it is going to be Google. They're probably going to make Google.lol, Google. I wonder what they're going to do. I think they're going to make that another one of their domain name shorteners, for one. I don't know what else they'll do with it. But I don't know how many of you paid attention to how these domains are actually being allocated. Well, you have to run your own root servers if you get one of these, right? I didn't read that part. I assume so. Yeah, which means you have to prove that you can actually run them. Well, but excuse me, it's got not root root, not the 13 at the core. Because those delegate where, com, net, whatever are. So they have to run the root. But if someone who runs com, does this verisign run com or something? That's a lot of servers. Google will probably have to run .lol and .google and .docs. It's interesting that Google is going for docs and Google docs. Yeah, but that's a pretty generic term. I'm sure they know how to run the server. Oh, I trust them. They'll probably write their own. But I would suggest that many of you look at how the lots are being allocated in terms of what domains are up for being and available when. Because they're not going to release them all at once because this is a cash grab.  Here's the list of new domains this month, or this week, or this whatever. So they're doing something that's kind of called digital archery, where they give you a link or something like that, and you have to click it, or shoot it, basically, as close to a particular time as possible. And whoever is closest wins. Yeah, you didn't pay attention to this stuff at all, did you? Are you sure this is real? Yes. So I've already found, for example, that there are a ridiculous number of people trying to offer a service of winning this archery for you. Wasn't Google just going to win? Yeah, what I'm going to say now. At the time at clock, with a computer right next to the computer, you have to hit. I am going to suggest that every Google domain, every time Google is involved in digital archery, they're going to win. And I defy anyone else to win, except possibly. Well, it's a targeted system. Don't even get me to say, I've got a better system. You ready for the system? First come, first served? That's a good system. Brown Robin? I've got another good system. As soon as they're approved? Whoever pays the most money wins. All right, so you have to pay both to be ahead of everyone else for your domain and to get your domain. All right, we can do that. Google will still get them all, because they have untold millions of dollars. What's interesting is that already a lot of professional associations are trying to get dot-bank and then work among themselves to make that a secure place. I still posit that the vast majority of the new top-level domains will be untrusted and or ignored by the vast majority of people on the internet. I'm definitely not going to be trusting anyone. I will probably use that Google, because I've realized that my personal workflows, like my life stuff, pretty much like my life workflow online is really inside of Google the whole time, kind of like how when I do audio and video stuff, my workflow is pretty much inside of Adobe the whole time. So I think I'll be on dot-google a lot, but I don't know how much I'll trust in this other stuff. We're going to make sure Pirate Bay gets Bay. Pirate.bay. How about that YAR? Dot-R-R-R-R-R. How are they going to host the servers so everyone will just block them easily? We'll see. I just wanted to point this out, because the last show we did, I mentioned this archery thing, and I don't think many people really knew what that was. Here's what's going to happen, though, right? Let's say I make dot-YAR, and that's all Pirate site, isn't it? Then most people are just using the time-mortar DNS server or the Verizon DNS server. Those DNS servers, if you ask them, hey, what's the IP address at scott.yar, they'll just be like, yeah, I don't see anything called scott.yar. I never heard of it. It knows this thing. The thing is, DNS blocking, we know it doesn't really work to actually stop people from firing. No, but it stops normal people from going itself. I put up billboards everywhere, but scott.yar, check them out on the website, and they'll really get to it. They're smart. We'll see what happens. I really just wanted people to see this archery thing, and a sheer number of people who appear to be trying to turn that into a business, I'm so disappointed in the internet that this is happening. It's pretty dumb. I cannot do it so well. Of course, our choices are like, I can or government? It's like, why don't we just bring in the head of so many people? That's kind of a secondary thing, that as much as I complain about the US government and I can and all these things, I really don't want the UN to have any power over the internet as a technological thing. I'd rather have the US end or I can than, I don't know, the rest of the world combined. There should be some sort of open source academic guys who run the thing. Yeah, who picks who the academics are? We vote the way like deviant votes. OK, so we do a democracy. Yeah, but it's all Linux guys. So only Linux guys?  If you want to vote, if you want to vote, you have to SSA, no, you have to telnet to a particular IP address and port, IPv6 only. And there, you have to use get and set commands directly, natively. It won't allow anything else. To follow an arcane dungeon crawling game served up entirely by a get to vote.  And rainbow suspenders. Use them, you have rainbow suspenders, and you've only ever seen me use this command line and you've seen other computers like what the hell's that? Anyway.  All right, things of the day, meta, guess we'll talk about Connecticut and anything else. 1QA4, anything else? No, you didn't take the key. Not a lot of it. I can follow it. All right, let's do it. Time for things of the day. But anyway, things of the day. This made the rounds on the internet with a ferocity and a rapidity that will rarely be repeated in the world. It's a thing so epic, I can't say awesome, because it's both awesome and not awesome. Can't say crazy, because I've seen crazier stuff. This really just counts as epic. So a dude, his cat died. I don't know the whole story. Cat's dead. Cat's dead, that happens. No one, immortal dog only works on dogs.  This video combines everything that is both right and wrong with the internet together. The only thing it's lacking is rule 34, and I'm sure that's coming. I just want to point out the number one comment on this video is in Cyrillic. The number two comment says, and I quote, am I the only person here that wants to know what that music is? It uses weird, like, cute Japanese cat music. It's like the kind of music you'd hear in the opening video to a dating game or something like that. I don't know, it's odd. But this is the kind of thing, you'd see a picture of it and think, wow, that is not real. That is obviously a photoshop now. And not only is this real and epic, but the way he made the cat into a helicopter just makes it better. Like, the way the cat is, like, splayed out. Like, it's flying, like, holding four propellers.  No, this is, I imagine the cat was named Orville because the video is called the Orville Copter by most people. This is pretty great. So take this video out. I'm Jacking. So this video is this guy explaining how the accelerometer and the cell phone works. And most people, you might know how a regular accelerometer works. Yeah, there's a couple different kinds. But very few people know how you make that ridiculously small. And it's sort of the same way as we did the differential gear one, where it's like you see the basic concept with the tinker toys.  But then you see how they miniaturize it and get it to be so much more precise, even though it's the same mechanism. It's the same thing. It's like, what's an accelerometer? It's a ball on a spring in a jar. Well, how do we make a ball on a spring in a jar in a few nanometers of silicon? And that's what this video is about. The thing is, historically, accelerometers are notoriously inaccurate in many situations. And much of what I've read is that the main reason accelerometers seem so good recently, partly is due to better software to interpret the data coming from the somewhat flawed accelerometer and constrain it reasonably to figure kind of infer what you're actually doing. That's a whole, like, neat thing that I don't know enough about to say anything more than what I just said. Yeah. I guess this video is good if you watch it. So in the meta moment, the book club book is QTEEN84 or 1Q84. I'm pretty much, I'm almost done with it. And since I'm flying to Toronto tomorrow, and while I don't want to go to Toronto, I'll probably finish the book on the flight home. Yeah. So we'll do a book club show on it real soon. I don't know when this episode will actually air. We have a previous episode we did that also may or may not be online yet, though I guess by the time you hear this. I'm probably going to fix this when I get home. Yeah. But Connecticut is coming up in the Hartford Convention Center in July. We run the panels and workshops department. The vast majority of the schedule is done, complete, up on the website. And you should go because it's in everything con. And we have panels on almost any crazy topic you can think of. It's going to be an exciting time. You won't get to hang out with us, though. We're kind of busy. Also, we upgrade our website, which is why I might take one.  Right. So come to our website if you really want, or just keep following us wherever you follow things. Yep. For example, many of you might be watching the live stream of this. We're trying out the Google thing. If it works out, we'll start doing it regularly.  Don't use that as your news. Let me add this to my to-do list. See, possibly integrate the. We should integrate this, especially if this video, like the video of the current show, is always just up there. That'd be cool. I'll tell you right now, we're probably going to try to integrate this to a different YouTube account for regularness, rather than it going up on, I guess, my personal. I'm not actually sure what YouTube account this is going to go to. Probably my personal one, which every time I upload a video that is not my little pony, you would not believe the amount of feedback I get from people that's like, yeah, where's the more pony stuff? Why are you putting up non-pony stuff? I feel like I need to segregate the pony stuff from the other stuff. I think you can make channels. You can. I did. I don't think anyone who uses YouTube knows how to subscribe to just a channel. Because 99% of the people subscribed to me are just on the account as a whole. Just ignore them. Yeah? OK. PaxPron, PaxDev coming up. We will very likely be at PaxPron doing one or more panels and events, maybe, or maybe not be up. What was that awesome panel I did with you on there? I was going to ask you that, because I kind of forgot. Oh, it was about the concept of something about getting people. Pokemon and air hockey? Yeah, that was what we were calling it Pokemon and air hockey. But really, it's about getting, you know, you go to a gaming con, like an anime con. And there's the guys who only care about one kind of anime. So they go to the thing about that thing. So things about that thing cater to the hardcore people already know about it. Like at a geek convention, like for computers. Say we did a panel on public key cryptography. People who already know what that is are going to expect it to be way inside baseball. Because otherwise, they already know how it works. And anyone who doesn't know what it is is not going to show up to the panel about that. So you get to the situation where it's impossible to get people who are unaware of a particular nerdery or geekery into that thing at a nerd or geek conference, because you're either superficial, but people who are into that thing won't go to it, or will hate it, and people who aren't into it won't think to go. Or you're hardcore, and the people who are into it go to it, and you never get anyone else. That's too much of an explanation for a meta moment. Meta moment. But we will, oh yeah, I've got to put the thing back up in the studio. The sun and move. Oh god. Oh god. Also, we will very likely be doing the board game tabletop workshop thing again, because at Pac-East, that went really, really well. I was amazed.  And then they all played the board game. I was kind of amazed. Other conventions, not going Otacon, because they hate us, we're blacklisted. Yeah, whatever. And we'll be going out of Boston next year. MagFest is coming. That's enough conventions. Enough conventions. Any other meta events? That's pretty much it. Shows will be a little sporadic until I get off of this travel schedule. So turns out, we learned recently that Stuxnet, Flame, there's been some high-profile viruses, which happens from time to time. But by all appearances, these were written by the government for political purposes. Usually, the thing most of the viruses and things out there are part of botnets that are set up by Russian. I feel like we could do a whole panel or a whole show on the history of malware. Because think about it, it went from, yeah, but it went from, but it went from harmless pranks like the form virus to actively malicious, like the ogre, to just trying to make money, like the botnets and the spam bots. And now we've got government cyber warfare, which the cyber warfare has been mostly a joke up to this point. Well, I mean, it's kind of funny because we don't really know how much of it has happened or is happening because it's super secret. And all we know is what we discover on computers around the world. And the US government has been very proactive, openly proactive, like, there's going to be cyber war. Let's prepare for it. For years, since the 90s or even earlier, they've been like, yeah, there's going to be computer warfare where people will attack other countries, computer systems to deal economic or even physical harm. And we have to prepare to defend against that. But meanwhile, they said it was going to happen. Yeah, you know why it's going to happen? Because you made it happen. You pretty much started it. I mean, from the evidence that we have, not only were they very loud about suggesting that someone else was going to start it and that they had to have defenses against it, but yeah, they pretty much also built the offenses and started it. I guess, Scott, this is not a new thing. And I point you to, are you familiar with the Siberian pipeline sabotage incident of 1982? I do remember that the pipeline was sabotaged. You don't remember details of the pipeline sabotage? Basically, the details of this are that now there's different classified and declassified or whatever. Basically, it is alleged pretty solidly that the CIA inserted a sort of trigger or some bad logic in these chips that they knew were going to be used to control the valves on this pipeline. And then we're able to later cause it to explode. This is in 1982. So I read recently that someone definitely, it could have been a BS story, because I only read the headlines. I don't know if it's true. But there's always been this sort of worry that you buy chips made from some other country that can have a back door in them. First of all, if you're worried about that, that probably means you're doing it on your chips, because you know it's possible. Well, Scott, you think that. I want to point out, I worked at IBM a long time ago. I actually did stuff in the factory where the PS3 chips happened.  So many of the chips that are in technology that the military would like to use or the government would like to use, no one in the United States makes the chips, nor any analog of those chips. But there are rules where certain kinds of things have to be made on US soil to prevent that sort of thing. And many times, the US military government is in a situation where they need X. No company in the United States makes X anymore. And they have to get it from China.  What I'm saying is that recently I saw a headline, which could be just on the internet, that said they confirmed finding a back door in some Chinese chip somewhere. Yep, I saw some articles downplaying it. But stuff like that does happen. You know. It's not that hard to do if you're making the chip.  You can't just patch it with a download. But thinking about the complexity of that kind of hack, say you make a special Intel chip, like a CPU, it's got to be such that it can hijack something the OS is doing and give you a back door into the OS's stuff. I mean, if you know the vast majority of the time, the OS is going to be like Linux kernel or Windows, right? There's a lot of common elements there. You can target something that's on a lot of machines. Or you just need to know what machine you're hitting. Or you can write something so generic. You could get just an assembly program in there that runs in the background and just takes every other CPU cycle or something if you're that low. And so it's like, OK, the computer's going slowly. Or maybe the computer's so fast I don't even notice it. But really what it's doing is, in a space you can't even see because it's just assembly code running in the CPU is reading bits out of your hard drive and it's sending them over the network wire. And the only way you can see that is if you're looking at the network traffic directly. Even if the aerial wouldn't see it, it's on the same computer. You need to look from another computer. Yeah, but at the same time, the complexity of controlling all the bits to where there's no sort of audit logs someone would notice.  And very few people do the level of due diligence that all the experts say once you do. So what do we do about it? It appears that the US government may have made, or made with other people, flame and possibly Stuxnet. Well, we know that pretty everyone knows they've made probably most of these. Yeah, probably. The evidence is very high to both of us. They're so complicated. And if you look at the data, it's going to take a long time to really look through all the deco files. Well, did you see today there was an article about how they happen to be signed by Microsoft certificates? Right. So you don't know, right? When you install some software on a computer, right, it always, like Windows, is like, hey, this driver is not signed by us, which means we didn't verify this is a good driver. It's just so many dollar difference on the internet. Are you sure you want to trust this? Yes, no. Now, in order to apply that signature to avoid the yes, no questions that it's trusted by the operating system, you need a private key, which we've talked about in the show before you build this in episodes of that, or watch a good YouTube video about it. And that private key is only in the possession of Microsoft the company. Because when you're buying Windows, well, you're trusting Microsoft with your operating system. You trust them with telling you a driver is good or bad. You're already trusting them anyway, right? Because they wrote all the code in the OS. So, I mean, come on. So if this virus is signed by Microsoft, that means one of a few things. It means, number one, Microsoft made. Well, Microsoft says it is a spoofed certificate, and they've already issued a patch to prevent it from working again. No, no, no, no. No, no, no, let me finish. No, let me finish. I was listing the things it could possibly be. And I didn't finish one of the things it could possibly be. Yeah, because I think the thing's pretty obvious. OK, not to people who listen to show and are experts. So the thing it could possibly be, number one, is Microsoft did it. I highly doubt that. I'm not, well, not did it. Yeah, so I'm saying did it as a made-flame. Yeah, no way. Number two, somebody else made-flame, and then paid or got Microsoft to apply the digital signature to it. The government could have coerced Microsoft into doing that, or maybe Microsoft did it willingly for money, or free, or who knows, possible. Number three, somebody was able to get the key from Microsoft, or crack it with some incredible computer, or guess it, or who knows. Unlikely. And then apply it themselves without Microsoft being involved. I call unlikely. My guess, my gut feeling, is that the government may or may not have advised Microsoft to let this go. Microsoft just gave the keys to the government. Or Microsoft signed it, or something. Because now that it's public, Microsoft immediately had a patch available. Now, for all I know, it's probably pretty easy to issue a patch that just says this particular certificate is no longer good. That's pretty much what the patch says. Hey, anything that was signed with this certificate is no good anymore, and anything that you see this certificate coming through denied. The thing is, if the certificate is that easily spoofed, well, Microsoft's in trouble anyway. So if the government got Microsoft to do it, I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm going to pull a Fahrenheit 9-11 here. It is interesting that Microsoft had a patch so quickly to- That's not hard to make it to really good. Exactly. But were I the kind of person who was trying to convince people of a certain narrative? It is interesting how quickly I really wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft was at least someone at Microsoft or Microsoft as a company was in on this with the governments. It's a likely scenario. I think more likely is someone- It's not a conspiracy theory. Mathematically, it's a matter of math. What's more likely, this somewhat believable conspiracy theory? OK, I don't like to believe conspiracy theories. Or incredibly powerful computers define the odds of powerful cryptography. They're also the possibility, I read somewhere, that it was like a third-party hand-off kind of cert. There could have been some other- Ah, but it was third-party hand-off cert? Definitely the government. I mean, really. Everyone knows it, David. Well, there was another article to have such a- It's like, you rob the convenience store. Everyone knows you're out the convenience store. But then how many perm evidence it was you, but there was another article on Slashdown that was so much better, the headline says it all. Antivirus firms out of their league with Suksnet and Flame. Seriously, antivirus as software. Like, you know, McCarthy, all these antivirus vendors.   I feel like in my professional opinion, you should never use software like that. If you're running Windows, just use Windows, you know, Defender, it works fine. Yeah, yeah. But I mean, that's not, you know, just don't even really pay attention to it. But really, real security takes place at all these other layers in the stack. The local PC with its antivirus, that'll keep out baby's first, you know, Trojan. But anyway, let's talk about display specifically, because this is an interesting thing about it.  You've seen ones that control people's computers, and make them sense spam, you've seen ones that destroy people's computers, and you've seen all kinds, right? We've seen ones that show people ads, there's a lot of those still going on. And there probably have been ones that have been the sort of cyber warfare thing that we didn't see. But this one, in particular, the way the flame works, is if you get it, you probably won't realize you have it, first of all.  Because it's very well concealed and proxied in those things. You know, that's a dinner up. So it'll turn your webcam on and look at you, and turn your microphone on and listen to you, but you won't know your web skins on because the light won't be on, and it'll get your key presses, and all your web history, and all this stuff. It basically just spies on you like crazy, and then sends that information somewhere. No, the reason what I was interrupting for is that I feel like we could do a whole show on the fact that the internet's like, on one hand, the RIA and the MPAA are always like suing people with IP addresses. And yet, you can send information out in the internet to whoever you want with no one, even like big governments, not able to figure out who you're sending it to. And the technology is to how that works is actually pretty neat. I think the best example.


Welcome to Agile Roots 2010, sponsored by Version 1, Rally Software, Vario, AmirSys, Agile Alliance, and Xmission Internet. Innovation Games, Software-Powered Innovation Through Collaborative Play by Luke Holman. And without further ado, we'll start the program. Luke Holman is doing amazing things. He's going to tell you all about it, but if you go look at the work he's done and the organizations he's worked with, I don't think he can help but be impressed. And Luke's going to tell you a little bit about himself, so I won't ruin the story. Thank you. Hi, everyone. And it was very kind to say, I'm doing amazing things, but you're going to find out that it's not I, it's we. There's a lot of people doing amazing things. And one thing I thought was interesting is, I think Andrew was asserting that people in this room would have a full deck of cards. Many people who are new to Agile sometimes think we're crazy, right? So we may not have a full deck of cards. This is a little bit about me. And the reason I throw this slide right now is that six-year-old girl who is convinced she's a pirate is the reason why I wasn't able to come to the conference yesterday because it was donuts with dad's day. So I wanted to be there with Josephine. So I wanted to thank Andrew for being really flexible about letting me come at a time that was convenient for my family. And I appreciate that. As you can see, I try to work hard, but I play at work. And we're going to talk about play and what that means and how that works. And I'm going to try and do something a little different, which is rather than talk about, has anyone read that Standish report stuff about how terrible we are and software, how all these failures exist? Anyone read it? Boo. Say boo. Boo. Because I think that we should actually celebrate software-powered innovation. And I think we have the greatest job as software people. And I mean this completely sincerely. This is the magic that you create.  Now, of course, I have a picture.  We've got Dale. We've got, who else? There should be. Israel is here or he was here. We've got Anders. And of course, Jeff Patton is a trained facilitator. And if you know Jeff, you know he's always doing his slides up until the last minute. So last night I was changing some slides, so I thought I should throw a picture of Jeff in there. Let's talk about software-powered innovation, software magic. Remember when this was innovative? Remember? Or am I dating myself? But that was innovative. It was. We had that innovation with MS-DOS.  The original mouse from Engelbert in 68. And if you've never seen the video, the actual video of Engelbert doing telepresence in real-time high-depth bitmap displays from 68, you have no idea what we still haven't yet to accomplish. Collaborative video editing in 68. Right? And then that became Xerox stuff. And of course, Father Steve. And now we have the Mac and we have the iPad. And although my wife disagrees with me, I think it was a perfectly justified reason to get Marvel Comics on my iPad to justify the iPad. Because if you read Iron Man on an iPad, it's like, oh man, it's for work. Really. It is. Okay. And now look at where we are, right? You think Tom Cruise in the movies, but there's people who are doing work with embedded systems with a company called Intuitive Surgical, which actually enables doctors to operate on patients in very non-invasive ways. And you know what? You did that. Maybe not you personally, but us as the community. Because this is all lumps of metal without software. It's all lumps of metal without software. And it's not just the user interface that I'm talking about. We've had innovation, software-powered innovation, as we have learned as a community to solve problems about architecture and scaling. Remember when we did two-tier and we thought that was cool, and then we're like, oh no, you're putting the business logic in the user interface. Oh no, no.  Now we have 17-tier because that's cool. Right? One more tier. It's got to be better. And then we created data warehousing, data warehousing architectures, data warehousing pictures. Again, we're solving these amazing problems. And we came up with patterns as a way to share the stuff and communicate this. And this is all software-powered innovation. Magic that you create. Magic that software people create every day. It's a great profession. And it's not just that the user interface at the architecture level. If you look at the world of innovation, because I'm here to talk a little bit about innovation and collaboration and collaborative play, if you look at the world of innovation, there's many kinds of innovation in the world. There's business model innovation. And there's process innovation. And there's channel innovation. And there's distribution innovation. And there's all sorts of products and services. And they are all powered by software. I know the hardware thing is important, too. I don't want to discount those hardware guys. I know he's laughing. He's like, don't show that on YouTube. This is all powered by software. Business model innovation, right? Zip car, changing the way we drive, changing the way cities engage transportation, powered through some of the work, because it's sophisticated routing and scheduling. Software people did that. You did that. Supermarkets. In the 50s, the biggest supermarket had approximately 8,000 items. Why? Because that was the limit that a human could manage the inventory. That was the paper limit. Now you go in and you have 8,000 kinds of ketchup. Some people say that's not so good. If you like a lot of different variety in your ketchup or your salsas or your pickles and your olives and stuff. That was all done because a software person did that. Back to the car. How many computers in the average luxury car? Five. Five? How about an order of magnitude more? 30 to 50. How many millions of lines of software code in the average car? 10 to 20? About five. Five to 10. We have a variable valve timing, which helps improve fuel economy, where you start off with 8 cylinders if you're pulling a heavy load and then on the highway you've got the 2 and 4. GM had that working in the 70s, but it took a vax to run it. Moore's Law kicks in. Software people get more efficient. Now we have variable valve timing. Cars are safer. Materials are safer. We're as a society where you are creating a better society through software. World's tallest building. Elevators won't work without software. What we do. Software innovation is everywhere. This is Jeffrey Moore with one of his recent books dealing with Darwin. He talks about all the different ways you can innovate. All the different exciting ways you can innovate. Of course, as you can imagine, given my lens, I just see all software. This is pretty cool. Software, I think, being in this profession, I told Andrew that part of what I wanted to do in this talk was give a little bit of celebration of what we do as a profession. Independent of process. Independent of agile or not agile, whatever. Just what we do. If you think about your world and how software affects your world, it is a way cool profession to me. I give a longer version of this talk to high school kids and college kids trying to get them to join our profession. Because this is really cool stuff. We do really cool stuff. Broad universe. Now, when you think about it, what causes and creates and enables and promotes innovation? Give me some shout-outs. What do you think creates this notion of innovation? What? Need. Yeah, you've got to understand the problem. Even if your customers don't know they have a problem, you can help them. That's true innovation when you're helping them realize that they don't even have a problem you're solving for. What else creates this notion of innovation? Competition. Two people said competition. You bet. One hand clapping isn't very interesting. Competition is good. Competition is good and it does create innovation. Scarcity creates innovation. What else creates innovation? Innovative stuff. I got a little something. I know, but I do have stickers if you want them. The only problem with my stickers is when my kids read my stickers, those are these work stickers. Who's wrong? Back-off-take stickers. It's great to get modded by the IRS. Legitimate production. Play. Play creates innovation. Absolutely. Play creates innovation. Absolutely. What's creativity? Vision. Yes. What else is creativity? All these things create innovation. One of the things I want to talk about is that we aren't talking about innovation. I'm not talking about invention. Invention is the theme of this stuff. That's cool. But innovation is actually putting it into practice. So what I want to talk about is the goal of the library to play. Not so much anything in the invention side, but in the innovation side. And there are people who study this. People who are core-studying this. And they're not necessarily from the software community. So one of the people who studies innovation, which we're going to talk about is the idea of putting things into practice. A common way to talk about this is what's called new product development. The field of new product development. And there's a guy named Robert Cooper. And he has a model of new product development called stage eight. Now, when stage eight is understood, it's very compatible with agile. When it's misunderstood, people call it a waterfall. Because they see that Bob says, how do you front-end homework before developing an invention? They call it a pickup line design, and they don't do that. That's not what he's saying. He's saying, do your homework. On your screens, someone says, what's the problem that you're solving?  Make sure that you can get a new one on what the problem is. But look at some of the other things that Cooper has found to be drivers and supporters of the notion of innovation. Can you see the agile man that's been over here? Part of the case? Robert, let's read us twice for now. What part of the agile man do you see right here? Customer focus. Number one, how about spiral development? Spiral development. This was done before we had other methods. Spiral development method was really the more prominent agile method. Very big spiral. Loose with music. That's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Loose with users throughout the world. That's what I'm talking about. Methods of comfortable teams. Sounds interesting. Polistic effective cross-functional teams. Now, when Bob Cooper is saying cross-functional, he doesn't know the potential of the developers that will help move on. He means truly cross-functional. Marketing and sales and marketing and distribution and manufacturing where we've got to create a product and modeling and marketing. Pretty improbable stuff. Any doubt that I say anything worth tweeting at? Yep. All right. Tweet tag. Okay, now, if you can't remember the agile man best spell, here it is. We can hear you again. Now, it includes all of the 14 practices, but here's the course of the individual interaction towards the software and customer collaboration. So we're going to talk about the notion of collaboration and play as it relates to this great thing that we get to do. We get to write software.  And the world of innovations really to me, lives itself. I don't know if there's other stuff. But, when you think about the other stuff like someone said in the fact that well, you know, there's a lot of innovations that occur in material science that allow you to do a software. I'm going with that. Did you, by the way, model those material science in the basement using the software tool? Or was it me? All of the innovation across the control and through the chemistry and drug research. I agree. Here it is. Did you manage to experiment with software? Did you analyze and did it with visualization tools in the paper houses? Yep. External collaboration is successful. IBM, every year, does a survey to 1,000 CEOs. In 2007, the topic of the survey was global innovation. 500 plus of the world's top CEOs survey. Now, I can't get that kind of data. You probably can't get that data because we're not IBM and we're not doing a lot of them. But, looking for data. Now, look at what the survey says. The most significant sources of innovative ideas. And it says employees as number one. Mmm. What does this mean? What is your number one? Well, I actually think that while the data is presented accurately here presenting in a misleading way. Because what I'm going to do is I'm just going to take those bar charts and then move them around a little bit and then I'm going to break it up to internal versus external. What happens? Two to one. Two to one. External collaboration is considered to be essential for innovation by 500 of the world's top CEOs that survey by IBM. This is interesting. This is interesting. Bob Cooper, who studies new product development says, do your own work to collaborate with the customers to inspire them to develop them. Where do you have the link? IBM says, where's the source of external or where's the source of innovative ideas to go outside? So how did we get there? Alice suggested just play. I'm going to go with Alice. So let's find out who you talk with. Dennis, you missed the shout out. Dennis is another trained facilitator. For my trained facilitators, we're going to do a game called Spider-Wave. There's paper and crayons around you or pens and pencils. What I want you to do is draw a circle in the middle of the paper. Write your name in the center of that circle. I want you to write the names of the people that you collaborate with at or on a regular basis.   If it's a good happy relationship, pick a good happy car. If it's not so good a relationship where it's contentious, but a contentious color, go draw. You have about 3-4 minutes when you'll be walking around and helping and answering questions. By the way, this will work better if you draw as it is, not as you wish it were. As it is, not as you wish it were. And don't try not to cry. I got one guy back here who's laughing so hard, but I think he's crying. Alright, you got a point of view on that? You got a point of view on that? Ron, once for yes, twice for no. Yeah. We're still working. I know. I know. So, I'll tell you another version of this statement we did with some customers. Now, I want you to take a second sheet of paper, a second sheet of paper, because this is the names, right? The names are not something that we could share, but I'd be interested in seeing the results. And Dale, raise your hand, Dale's one of my training experts. He's going to help me. He's going to help blood results. Do it again. But this time, I want you to replace the name with the role that the person is playing. You know, developer or tester, if you still have differentiated roles in your acting, that would be interesting because you might, right? Look at that interaction. I think we're close enough. This is the game that we played with Paul Spiderweb. Now, normally, when we're playing this game, we're asking customers of our client to draw pictures of system relationships or other relationships that are related to us. We do this collaboratively. Here you're moving it in a less collaborative form to illustrate a point. Now, when you're looking for paper, I get to do the Dr. Phil. How's that? Working for you. Are you talking to interesting people? And more importantly, are you talking in a way that suggests that you are in fact engaging in customer collaboration? Are you talking with people outside your building or inside your building?   If you would like to see what other people wrote, and you want to hand us the version of this that doesn't have individual names but roles, hand it to Dale and we'll take photos of it and we'll post it on our website and see what happens. I'm going to show you some pictures and I hope they come through about other people who've done this exercise. So, keep in mind that we're Agilists, right? We're Agile Roots. Right? So, we favor customer collaboration over contract negotiation. We do, right? All right. So, developer one. Interesting. They have developer, developer, engineer, management marketing. Marketing, that's a big red line. It's not coming through. Red, equal, miscommunication. Green. Good. But that's it. Clear. Change another developer. Right? Blue. Directly understood. Right? Jacket to be avoided if possible. Now, did you see any customers in that picture? And how about your picture? Let's try it again. Developer two. Have the tense problems. The closest this person gets is product management. But, of course, product management isn't a customer. They're just a customer proxy. Sometimes, they're good customer proxies. And sometimes, they're just frustrated X engineers who want to build it and want to build it. And now, they power it down. It's not demand and control. I'm just prioritizing it. Think about it. Manager one. Do this with a manager. Look what happened. Wait a minute. Developers, we're not talking with customers. But who gets to talk with customers? Managers. I'm a manager. I talk with a partner. Customer. Partner. Customer. Interesting. So, if we're so agile, where are all the collaborating customers? They're passing.  I've got to find out. If we're so agile, we've got a guy in the middle of the road going. If we're so agile, we're all collaborating customers. We're going to talk about that. Now, that's one big asterisk. Is it not? Yes. Yes, it is. So, hold on that point. We're going to go back to that slide. I think that one of the reasons that we may not have this notion of customer collaborations because our tribe of azurists has equated many times the collaboration of the talking. Collaboration to interviewing. Tell me what you want. Write a user story with me. Which is effectively telling me what I want. It's a survey. Right? So, it's like you're talking to the pig. Okay. This isn't collaboration. This really isn't collaboration. Now, think about our tribe. We've said write better tests, do better stuff and we've created a whole infrastructure of testing and a guy I trust again, Dale, he's like, dude, have you seen this new book on agile testing and testing your products? Yes, we have books on some of that. But where's the stuff about collaboration? Where have you been taught how to really collaborate? And it's important to understand that collaboration is not. It's more than talking. So, what is it? Let's deal with Wikipedia, right? Because when you're doing talks you can either steal images online or you can collaborate it right away. Go to Flickr or borrow Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia. Bless you. So, collaboration, it's recursion which always you like because I'm an expert. It's recursive. But it's about a goal and it's the intersection of working together with these common goals, right? And so we share. This is collaboration. How do we do this with customers? How do we teach ourselves in our community and our world to do collaboration? And collaboration is hot, hot, hot. Hot. I'm from Silicon Valley, right? Which is like the land of $80 billion of uninvested venture capital within 15 miles of my house. And they are shoving money at social networking, social gaming in collaboration. It is hot. It's hot, hot, hot. And yeah, most people do collaboration because they think it's a platform and it's not a platform. But we do need tools. We do need tools to collaborate. But collaboration isn't the platform. And when you log into a lot of these management tools it's like, you log in and here's your task board. Here's your task list and it's about you. Well, I thought collaboration was about working with others. And yet, I am important in the role of collaboration. My task is not important. If I'm going to work on a task board and it's not sharing. Especially in business people like, hey, we're going to share. It's like, you know, glitter. Kind of, but not really. Sharing isn't collaborating. Sharing is sharing. That's okay. Sharing is part of the collaboration but it isn't collaboration. And it's not notifications. There's a big hot movement right now. How do I notify you? How do I signal you? How do I create the right compound board so that you can organize your work and we can combine the mechanisms between the different functions. This is good but it's not collaboration. And yet, we do need to be older. And the other thing that I think really interesting is that there's this notion of transparency in adult in the sense that everything's got to be transparent. But guess what? It's not how humans work. We can't work where everything is always transparent. People need an opportunity to have private spaces, semi-private spaces to engage in negotiation, to engage in collaborative acts. So how do we do this? Maybe it is the tools. Maybe we don't have the right tools for collaboration. We can talk about what kinds of tools is this for collaboration. Alice has been distributing some tools for collaboration at the conference. There are lots of tools for collaboration. So let's talk about what, if it's not the platform but tools are important and it's not sharing but sharing is part of the collaboration. What is this thing? Well, collaboration does need tools. In the land of computer-supported cooperative work, we organize the activities of people in the same time, different time, same place, different place. When we have different mechanisms, right? We have in-person games for what we do. We have online games. This is the same game done in-person and online because the context will determine one or the other. We have co-located teams and the extruded teams in terms of how people work. Now, in-efficient games what we do are serious collaboration tools. It's kind of fun. My old company was at the Ossetian Newlands in the in-efficient games company partly because this is hard to speak and read and spell. This is a Forrestner report where they're talking about, wait a minute, there's something happening in the industry that says gaming in serious games are really important. Some things happen. What are these things called in-efficient games? They're serious games. These are games that are played to solve complex organizational problems. Andrew made a shout-out in my introduction of some of our clients. We're really proud of some of these clients. We've done some really interesting work with some of these people. We're going to talk about them. Now, these games are not silly games they're not fun and they're not humorous games. So we're trying to distinguish this notion of a serious game or collaborative play from something like going to the water park or playing a game or something like playing paintball or something. It's more like spellers of the time which is a game where collaboration matters and how you play matters. There's an element of competition or there's an element of collaboration here. Does anyone of them know Yooker? All right. Yooker is a really fun card game usually played with beer because I spend a lot of time in the Midwest and I do have a beer for the interaction. But if y'all come over oh yeah, they can get a beer from the beer interaction. And it's this notion of competition and collaboration. Now, one of the reasons that we struggle as an industry to talk about this notion of serious game or serious play is that we do not have a word for this in language. As you understand linguistics, you understand that language and it's really hard to understand something that we don't have any words for because it's always action and wrong. Serious game. Serious play. Well, how can that be? So I'm going to give you a dimension that says these are the things that you might find pleasurable and these are the things that you might find not pleasurable. We'll tell the things that you find pleasurable will play and the things that you find not pleasurable not to play. So far as good? And then over here we're going to put not work, which is leisure and what I need by not work is you're not paid to do this. You choose to do this or you're coerced to do this as you'll see in a minute. And then we'll put over here the things that you do which are to work really. You get paid to do them. Now for me, and this picture there's a completely personal. I'm going to give you my version of this picture. For me, that's not me, but that's a picture that looks like me. I have this hedge of idea on the side of my house and it's the evil idea that needs shading about every six weeks. It's anything long, it's 18 feet high, it's 3 feet wide. I do not find shading the idea into a pleasurable activity. To me, this is work. Now I have a friend, Sandra. Sandra is wonderful and she is a gardener who loves spending time in her garden. Her idea of a happy weekend is wake up Saturday morning and come home going night dirty with dirt and making her garden beautiful. That's not my idea of where things go. Are you with me? You can start to see this. Now for me, I actually do like playing poker. I think it's a fun game. It's playing it simple. It's a good game to play. So I'll put you girl here. Now that work, I run a small business. This is a picture of quick books of Cali. I don't find one of my books pleasurable. An account, however, might. It's not my cup of tea, but for an account or tax attorney or something like that, that kind of work could be fun. Of course, I find playing games. You can look at this world and the challenge is we're happiest as humans when we are operating in that space. And if you look at that article, you'll find that part of this is that this guy has done brain scans between two eight-year-olds building the Lego City and two adults collaborating pairing in PowerPoint and the brain scans are the same. The level of pleasure, the level of engagement and the level of thought is the same. Makes sense. They're working in a pleasurable way with a common goal for truly collaborating. So, and it is fun. So one of my clients is version one. Version one came to us and said, we've got some part of our background that we would like to prioritize with our customers. We played three different games. These are the actual unedited triggered scripts from three games, you know, where I just said you enjoyed the experience. Yes, it was fun. Now what was the last time that your customers thanked you for giving them a survey? Maybe not. So what happens is it's not only that your team has a better response, your customers can engage in this process and this notion of collaborative play starts to affect people in really profound ways. Now, when you look at the world of collaboration the definition talks about having a goal. Now these are some of our client projects. And if you start to look at the goals, right, I want to prioritize the project portfolio, I want to do new product development. This was a really interesting project between NetApp and SAP. NetApp came to us and said, we're finding our software is used in interesting ways with SAP software. And I said, great SAP is a customer, how about we bring SAP in the room in terms of the research, which the project affects both companies. A little bit of shuttle diplomacy, but both companies agree to do a joint research project. So when you think about collaboration, and you start talking about extending your notion of collaboration to your customers, include the people in your ecosystem. Your partners and suppliers start to think about who now I collaborate with to make something happen. Now we did a game with these people on spider web. We had webs, now we did an extremely abbreviated version. Most of the time the game takes two hours for a single game with customers. With the game here, we had a spider web. One spider web. We had six spider webs drawn by customers. Just one of those spider webs was eight feet long and six feet high. Showed all of the relationships and interventions of a complex IT environment. Amazing stuff. And you can use that to do what someone shot out earlier, which is, what is the foundation of the innovative project? Understanding the mark of need. Requirements come after the industry. Requirements shape your industry. Understanding the mark of need is part of that first step towards true innovation. Now, enterprise goals, what's interesting is all of these goals are verbs. We want to do things like envision the future. We want to prioritize stuff. We want to plan and sequence. We want to establish boundaries and understand relationships. These are part of the verbs. And this is where we start to see the distinction between these kinds of games that I'm doing or games like Alistair is doing, which if you look at traditional tools, chat is good, but chat isn't a sufficiently kind of application to help you collaborate with customers. Because it's not tuned towards the goal. It's like using a hammer to screw boards together. It's the wrong tool. It's not a sufficiently advanced tool. So what we're trying to do is create a set of higher level tools that enable you to collaborate with customers. Now verbs mean action. Right, verbs mean action. Now, I'm a Marvel guy, but I know there are DC people in the world, so I throw in some DC stuff. Right, verbs mean action. And to take action, we need to both create the goal and an entry action. And then we need to reduce ambiguity so we know older building, reduce equivocality so that we can do anything. Reduce equivocality so that we have a higher degree of confidence that the team is operating as a team, and then we can do the normal stuff, which Agile helps with, which is identify, distribute, perform, integrate and verify that the work is going. So collaborative play helps with these things, and Agile kicks in because those things are efficient. Right, so these things are not antagonistic, they're very supportive. Now, I mentioned that you want to solve specific problems with specific tools. James Bond would be horrified if he fired up a blender. He would. Because he asked for it, shaking. Not smoking. And certainly not well done. So, here are some examples of the games that we have. All of the games are at visitgames.com. If you want to give me 83 cents, you can buy my book. I thank you. Right, so we have product box with such a vision. We have remember the future, understanding shared success. We have spiderweb, which you played, which helps you understand conflict relationships. We have start your day. One of the things that people make mistakes on in the department's gallery is they ask people, tell me how you need this done. And they forget that the relationship that you have to a product or service changes is over time. The way you use TurboTax in September is very different because we use TurboTax in March or April. The way that amusement park needs to manage the database of customers is radically different in September than it is in May. Right, and what we want to do is we want to give customers that we're working with an identification of need, an opportunity to tell us how the when changes the how. Because those things will change. We want to understand hidden needs and problems. There's a game called show and tell. There's another game, speedboat. How do you understand things that are going wrong? If you want to break speedboat down into your developer and you're like, look, I understand developer. I really need a developer centric. You can use speedboat to identify a technique with that. There's a lot of folks at innovationgeams.com that explains how to deal with it. You can leverage these teams in teams that are internal. There are three games towards prioritization because prioritization is such a hard problem. You can prioritize benefits. You can build great road maps or you can use buy a feature. Buy a feature I'm not going to talk about it except to say one of the fun parts about buy a feature is when you get customers to create their own money it really personalizes it. These are Scott Bucks Scott Bucks from Intuit. At the top it says the life and design you trust innovatively must. Scott Bucks they use Scott Bucks when they're playing buy a feature. Now, why is road mapping important? I'm trying to bring this on. Why is it so important? You can change these numbers. You can change these numbers. I chose what I thought was reasonably fair of fully loaded developer being salary plus benefits, plus office days, plus gear you can raise or lower that number but I picked a hundred feet. A little over silky valley, a little high part of the places. Let's say that your iteration length is three weeks fair enough. I'll build three weeks, two weeks four weeks. One week one hour continual. If you look at it that means that your iteration cost every three weeks you're paying 8,500 bucks a little bit more. Your team size is 8 because the money's co-located team sometimes. That means that your iteration is costing you $1690 pay. Let's say that you pull down 60 points because you're really planning poker at home-based estimates. We know these aren't transferable or comparable however they are way to understand what things cost. And this is an epic. And epics are really big and really big stories. Our experience is that epics break down into as many as 20 to 50 discrete stories. The big chunk of work breaks down into all this other stuff because we're doing lots of elaboration and making it big smaller because and this is one of the problems with agile right? Customers like big chunky work developers like you and it's this dichotomy of customers want these big things and agile people want these small things that is this notion of decomposition. Nonetheless let's say that your average big chunk of work costing $150,000. I don't know about y'all but you can't be making a lot of mistakes at $150,000 in these successful business. And so there's some worthwhile you know, some goals to understand what's going on here. Well let's look at the agile planning and you know have you seen this, the agile planning circle? Have you called the agile planning onion? Have you heard it called the onion? No? I don't like calling it onion because I need to make you cry when you've got it.  We don't have to have to. There's flame. Right. So you have to manage the questions and the perspectives according to the time frame and wrote that fully kick in at many months to many years as opposed to these other things. You can start to see in the overlap of the different organizations that we work with. Now do you want to see a roadmap for it like that? Marketing comparison? Yeah. What do you look like this? Is it somebody's worst? Just pull out the website. It's a really blue marketing and it says nothing. Look at it. What does it say? Nothing. It's pretty wild. They're going to fix stuff. They're going to produce stuff. They're going to fix stuff. Now this is an actual client roadmap from one of our projects and you can see because pretty thing the picture is messy. So here you can see there's a question mark that was going to happen. This could go here or here and solve a problem. So how do we create this? How do we get there in a collaborative way? Many of you have probably sat in experience with the customers. We bring customers into the room maybe at the customer advisory board or a user group meeting and your marketing team presents the roadmap in power. And you're like what do you think? And your customers are sitting there going well clearly they don't really want to know anything because they think it to be in power. Because power point is not a medium for collaboration. It's a medium for presentation. And that's not to... I'm not looking at power point. Power point is fine. I'm using it right now. What I'm saying is that if your goal is to collaborate with customers, that meeting is not the right meeting. There's this really interesting gap. You really do want to collaborate with your customers. You really do want to get their feedback on your roadmap. And they want to give it to you. And yet the tool doesn't allow for that. So let's drill into this just a little bit. Does your roadmap look like this? These are actual pictures of from the product tree in action. Where we are representing and it's kind of hard to see it's a little faded. But these are actual trees that are the features of the emerging software product. The elements of the roadmap are represented as apples and leaves in the feature. When I say apples and leaves, I really do mean go to a school teacher supply store and spend four bucks and buy apples. Put a piece of


You're watching history of television today. We're so excited we're Instagram-living this thing. It's big poppy. This is going to be historic. Oh, boy. It's historical. Let's go back in case... Look at the goggles right here. I'm ready. Let's go back in case you missed it. There was a bet between Alex and David. Let's set it up. Here it is. We decided let's put a little bet on this, right? Oh, yeah. So tell me if you guys agree. Here's what we'll do. The loser of this series will have to wear the opposing uniform, full uniform on set and have to get doused by champagne. What do you think?  He sighs because he's the one wearing it. I like it.  Well, we know who won that bet. Welcome in, Alex Rodriguez, baby. Come on in, Alex. Obviously, I got big poppy's pants. I got to be honest. That's a nice shoe. That's terrible. This should have happened in 04. I was going to say this is almost happened in 04. Hey, this is a man who pays his bet right here. Oh, my goodness. Hey, Kevin, I bet you he wouldn't have done this if he were lost. What? You're right. All right. Well, here's the moment. Here's the moment we're waiting for. Let's walk over to the champagne. The Red Sox have won the series. Oh, yeah, baby. Caroline. Oh, oh, good. Here we go. Poppy. I just got one thing to say. What?  I got one thing to say, Poppy. I'm a Yankee for life. Where's my Yankee hat? One more. One more. One more. One more. Here you go. You notice Poppy's looking for the cheese. Poppy, don't drink it now. Don't drink it. Oh, my Lord. Unbelievable. What can I say? That's how we do it. Hey, Poppy, don't forget. Come on, let's go. 27 times. World champs, baby. 27 times. 27 times. Oh. We're coming back. I've seen a lot of things, but that is a replay. That's amazing. Alex, you are a good man.  How about that? He paid up. Poppy, don't drink the champagne. We're out. See you tomorrow. You are a good man. Good job for paying up, brother. Hey.


Our first caller is Jackie from New Jersey. Hey Jackie, how can we help you? Hey, so thank you for taking my question. I've been listening to you guys forever, so I appreciate it. To give you a little bit of background context, I am eight months pregnant, former athlete and personal trainer, fitness director. So I've been into lifting for probably about six to seven years or so. I have done maps aesthetic and strong and love them both. Currently training about two to three times a week, that's it right now. Kind of like a phase two in aesthetics, if I'm feeling up for it right now. So I have a two part question. The first part is, can I still make physical progress in the third trimester or should I really just focus on trying to move and like trying to feel good? And second part would be, you know, post baby once I'm cleared, of course. How do I measure what's too much and how do I, you know, what program do I do? What, how do I get back into things? This is so common with athletes and trainers and coaches. Of course.  Impossible. And absolutely is not, I mean, I had to have this conversation. Dominate this pregnancy. Katrina is the same way. She's a collegiate athlete. She's been into fitness for many years. She was in great shape going into the pregnancy. And so this was the same conversation I had to have with her as like, honey, this is not about making gains or progress in your body right now. It's about maintaining, being healthy and it's all about the health of the baby, not about you at this moment. And so you got to remind yourself that is that, you know, and you're, and like I told her, it's amazing how resilient the body is, especially for someone like you who's been training for as long as you've been training, your body's gonna bounce right back and your priority should not be to try and make gains that should be about optimizing how you feel on a daily basis. Yeah, now this is, now, of course, there's gonna be some people that can progress in the third trimester. I really, really, really advise against even aiming for that. Now, the first trimester totally different. That's like, you know, the first and second trimester, depending on if you have morning sickness and odd stuff, sometimes people's performance gets better. But what you're really trying to do is set yourself up for a great rebound after you have the baby. And then, of course, it improves or impacts the health of the baby.  Because of the environment that the baby's in.  Obviously, in the third trimester, you're not gonna do a lot of core exercises like you did before. There's probably a lot of split stance exercises you're not gonna be able to do because your belly's in the way. Yada, yada, yada. Post pregnancy, here's the deal.  When you have, especially in the third trimester, with the stretching of the abdominal, the transverse abdominis, the core muscles, your core stability is gonna be non-existent compared to where it's been before. If you attempt to train the way you did before, the risk of causing problems or creating really bad recruitment pattern issues is quite high. Maps starter would be an ideal program post pregnancy. Now, here's the good news. Adam said how resilient you'll be. Oh my gosh, if you lift weights, build muscle, the resilience, even if you don't exercise, let's say something happens, you have a C-section, you can't train, whatever. Boy is the body resilient. It's really insane, like my wife, she worked out real hard pre and then during pregnancy and after pregnancy, she couldn't train for a while and her body barely changed because of the muscle that she had built. But go easier than you think. You'll get there faster that way than if you try to push yourself. So real easy, take your time. You'll find at about month six postpartum, month six to month nine is when really things start to feel kind of good. Some of this depends on breastfeeding. By the one year mark, you're gonna be flying. So give yourself some time. All right, it's awesome, thank you. No problem, do you have access, by the way, to Maps Starter? I don't. You do now, we're gonna send that over. We'll send that over to you. It sounds like, check your right pocket. Yeah, I like that. It'll happen. Hey, by the way, congratulations on the... Thank you, thank you very much. You know if it's a boy or a girl? It's a girl. Oh, that's great. Yeah, a little girl. September girl in our family, so. Wonderful, wonderful, congratulations. Thanks for calling in. Thank you guys. I remember managing gyms and I would have, of course, female staff, right? And they were all typically into fitness. And I remember distinctly, there was this one period of time where I had this female trainer and this group X instructor, both pregnant at the same time. And it was a big deal because they were both pregnant and they'd come to the gym, everybody knew or whatever. The group X instructor was obviously a cardio fanatic.  The trainer was straight up resistance training, strength training, fanatic. Love lifting weights, the whole thing. It was incredible. And of course, this is not technically a study because it's only two people. But I remember watching... Yeah, I know exactly the difference in their bodies afterwards. How quickly they bounced back. Oh, the strength training trainer, like it was insane how she bounced back. And the other trainer, the other, excuse me, group X instructor, actually after a while came to the other trainer and was like, my body isn't responding, what's going on? She's like, you need to lift weights. So that's when I, that's the first time I really saw that difference. All the work you had in the first two trimesters, which is, you know, what you kind of brought up. But I remember even with Courtney, it was the same thing like between the difference between the two boys, you know, pregnancies because the second one was a little more difficult and there was issues in terms of her being able to work out.  So yeah, that's the majority of the work going, you know, into the recovery process. So like the third trimester is like, okay, let's just get ready. Yeah, I was amazed by how fast Katrina bounced back. And you know, I've read a lot of stuff on what they estimate like the calorie burn, metabolism boosting that you get from breastfeeding. And I don't know how much I subscribed to how accurate a lot of those are, because I think there's a major variance for per women and stuff. But boy did Katrina have a huge. Courtney did too. Oh my God, Katrina, I was, it blew my mind. I was just like, yeah, she was building muscle and leaning out like and eating like crazy. I was so fascinated with how her body was morphing and changing like week over week with the amount of calories that she was consuming because the breastfeeding completely sped her metabolism up. So it definitely worked in her favor.