Wel.. Sut fan gwb Dear communion and inviting me Perhaps I ought to say that when I'm with Oxford The term, the constitutional expert that's applied to a historian Who's given his telephone number to the journalists And thank you for coming on such a hot day to hear me Now it's clear that in 2015 Mag complex remains a living presence Mae'n gofio y gallwn oedden nhw o'n gwirionedd o'r pols yn 2006, os ydych chi'n bwysig i'n fath o'r cynghorydd y Magnau Carter y 5th yn 15 ym 5th y Ddweud, ddyn ni'n amser eich bobl yngmell? Mae'n adnod i'n arwelfennu wrth yn fath o'r cynghorydd a'r cynghorydd o'r cynghorydd y bydd yn gweithio'n ddiwrnod. A'r cynghorydd yn gweithio'n dweud, mae'n fath o'r cynghorydd o'r cynghorydd o'r cynghorydd yma o'r cefnodi Cymru, O'r 39, mae 39 yn ddau, mae no defnyddio'n ddweud o'r pryd, o'r llwyffau sy'n rhoi'r wneud o gyfnod o'r cyd-feydd o'r wych, o'r pryd sy'n ddweud o'r byth, o'r dyfodol yn y gwybod. Felly, mae'r llwyffau yn dda i gael o'r ddweud o'r cyd-feydd o'r cyd-feydd o'r ddweud o'r cyd-feydd o'r llwyffau sy'n rhaid, oherwydd o'r llwyffau sy'n rhaid, oherwydd o'r llwyffau sy'n rhaid. alempau'r ein chwesteid yn eich cyffredinol uchwyn, mae'n cael bod yn dwysbeth sydd yn creu'r cyfweld yma yng Ngheirio. Mae'n cymhredu beth oedd yn ni'n creu'r cyffredinol yn cyfweld yn cael ddeimlo cynrydor i'r cyfaradol yn cyfweld yn gyfweld. Mae'n cyfrwyng i'r�in o'r cwestes yna cofweld yn cyfweld ac yn cyfrwng rhagor mwy o'r cyffweld yn cymhredu, mae o fydd yn gallu hynny yw'r cyfweld yn cyfweld mwy o ffwrddol iawn. The implication is a Parliament of some sort and the Parliament did, I think, come into existence in the 13th century. Now of course that trips to the no taxation without representation played an important role in the revolt of the American colonists against Britain in the 18th century. ac yn gymrydau cymdeithasol yn mynd i'r clynyddol, ac yn cymddiol i'n cymryd gyffredinol, mae'r Cysyddiannol yn fawr yn gweithio'r cymryd, arian i'r lluniau sydd eu ffwrdd pan yw'r ffioedd. Yn yw'r cymryd yw'r cymryd, ac yw'r cymryd yw'r cymryd yw'r cymryd yn fawr, ac yw'r cymryd yn gweithio'r cymryd yn gweithio'r cymryd, ac yw'r cymryd yn gweithio'r cymryd, y cyfnodd yn ymgyrch yn y cyfnodd. Felly, rwy'n meddwl yw'r cyfnodd yn y cyfnodd. Mae'r prynsbeth yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn 17th o'r cyfnodd o'r periwyr o'r cyfnodd yn y cyfnodd. Mae'r parol yn teimlo yn ddod, mae'r cyfnodd yn gwneud yn y prysbeth yn y cyfnodd ond nid yn cyfnodd yn y cyfnodd. Mae'r cyfnodd yn ddod, mae'r cyfnodd yn y cyfnodd, ac yn cael y gallu gweld y llach fânwg, ac ydych chi fod yn ymweld â'r gwrthu. Mae'n gweld chi lewb—y ehongor i'ch gweld y Llywodraeth Maenru, ac hynny yw'r Llywodraeth Llywodraeth yn unig supportedr. Felly er fyddeugodd yn lle'r cyfwyn Tubech. Mae'r bandwg rhwngfyrd wedi'u liaisonu'r llach fyrddllol. Mae'r bandwg rhwng fydd yn ymwelch, fe wydd yn ymweld yn elif, eich fydd yn cael ei wneud. A gyddon yma yn cael ei wneud, Ieithio datblygu a chyfnod ac rydych chi'n ddweud i'r hyn, ond mae'n ddweud i'r byw yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru yn oed yn oed yn rhagleni'r prysgol yn Grifolol Llywodraethau Llywodraethol, y Prysgol yn unrhyw ddechrau, yn y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth. Ond mae'n ddweud i'r cyfreunio bod fath yn gyfer y Rhywodraethau, mae'n ddweud i'r prysgol yn ysgol yn oed yn ddweud i'r hyn. A rwy'n gwrs, ti'n llei'r ystafell, chi'w mawr y llei, ond yn unrhyw biadïad, iawn yn chrysydd, a hoffr iawn i rhai yr unig hawdd cyhoeddiol yn rhaid i'w dod yn cleidio. a chyddaf, yn aglw�m, yn felly yn ni i'w cael poddur o'r llwyr cyllideb hynny, yn gwneud o'r cyffredinol, sydd wedi'i cael potig o'r golygu. A llwyddo, yn y rhai cyfraffiau ar gyfer y Rhef northwestr, yn ysgrifnaid yng nghaeddaeth, i'n sylwg bod y ddefnyddio'r ddysgu wrth hyn o'r bwrdd, yn ychydigodd yma i'r ddweud yma hwn ar y cael gwaith. Felly, y ddechrau'r darnodd ym Mhwng Gwyrdog wedi'u gwneud y byddai'r ddweud yn rhoi y Prifysgol yma i'r Lhaegdor, rym ni wedi'n ei ffamilydd i'r ddweud yma. A yw 1641, y Llyfr Ddraffod erbyn ei ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r Gwrdd Gwrdd. Felly, o ran y Llywodraeth Gweithio, mae Chael yn eich gweithio cyd-egwyd. A yn 1649, mae Gweithio'r Llywodraeth Chael, beth bydd yn y DU, wedi ddiweddar o gweithio'r gweithio'r llyfridd yng nghymru a oedd y Llywodraeth Gweithio yn lleolol am gweithio'r Llywodraeth. A yn ddiddordeb yn gweithio'r Llywodraeth yn gweithio'r Llywodraeth Gweithio. A cyd-egwyd am gweithio'r Llywodraeth, ac bod, rwy'n amlwg, yn 1681, parlyd yn yr enwedd yn fuddeithio'r ymdau cyd, oed yn ddau rwy'n oed ond, ond rwy'n newyddol yn cael bod y llanonr lle gwylio'n cyd-grinedd i partai am y gallu Llywodraeth yma, ac yn ei gweithio'n gwmeidydd a'r regangodd. Rwy'n ail, yn fawr, oedd, o ran y presbydd Genedlaeth Cymru yn ystafell yma yn 1689, One of the charges against him was that of having violated the fundamental law. Now many of those who preached this doctrine of fundamental law believed it to be embodied in the common law, a body of judicial doctrine based on principle. And for those who thought in this way, a statute did not create law that declared what the law actually was. And the task of common law of judges was to act as an ultimate court of appeal in constitutional matters. The supreme court that you are likely to have heard of before is the law of suffering and the judges alone would understand its mystery. And that idea that common law of constitution has been resurrected in our own times, most notably by law and justice laws. And many have seen the origins of that particular idea, and I would say Edwin Cook, who was Chief Justice under James Hurst, and Cook declared that Magna Carta in 1628 that it is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign and will have Magna Carta's sovereign monarchy. But Cook's ideas were, I think, wrong and confused, and it never, I think, occurred to him that there could in fact be a clash between the common law and the executive. And his hostility was directed, certainly not to Parliament, the Solitude of Parliament, but not the Royal Parology. The first people to use the idea of Magna Carta as a weapon against the Solitude of Parliament were the 17th century levellers. And to them, and we, and I think the Americans, were the idea of fundamental law and of a written constitution. Now, in 1647, the levellers drew up the first of three agreements of the people, according to which Parliament was to be limited by fundamental law which was unalterable. And under the terms of that agreement, Parliament could not legislate against the freedom of religion. It could not exempt anyone from the due process of the law. It could not abridge the freedom to trade abroad. And it could not impose death penalty except for murder. Above all, perhaps, it could not abolish trial by jury. Now, a third agreement of the people drawn up in 1653 went further and declared that all laws made or shall be made, contrary to any part of this agreement, are thereby made null and void. In other words, traditional review judges can strike down such laws. And I think that third agreement is perhaps the first modern constitution in European history. People sometimes say our first constitution with Oliver Cromwell's constitution of 1653 is through the government. And, indeed, Cromwell told the first of Parliament his protectorate in 1654 that in every government there must be somewhat fundamental, somewhat like a Magna Carta that could be standing and is unalterable. And that instrument of Cromwells did also contain unalterable provisions such as that providing for freedom of conscience in religion. And Parliament should not make themselves perpetual because Cromwell said that what assurance is a law to prevent so great and evil if it lies in one of the same legislator to outlaw it again. But at Cromwell I think he is not a very happy founder of the first constitution because it came after it abolished the House of Lords. And shortly after his constitution he abolished the House of Commons so I think his title to be a constitutionalist was a bit dubious. Now, after the restoration in 1689 the idea of fundamental law receded. But even so the myth that Magna Carta survived Berk, whom I've already quoted twice, said in his reflection on the revolution in France, our oldest reformation is out of Magna Carta. Now the idea was resurrected across the Atlantic by the American revolutionaries and indeed it's audible that Magna Carta had more influence in America than in Britain. And the ideas of the levellers were to be embodied in the American constitution. But in Britain following the glorious revolution of 1689 the weak time is symbolised by the Bill of Rights. Now that was very different from the American Bill of Rights because it did not serve to entrench fundamental rights against legislative majorities. Instead it was a statute guaranteeing the rights of parliament against the king. No limitations were placed upon the king in parliament as a legislator that powers remained unlimited. But the balance of powers altered in favour of parliament against arbitrary rule by the king. So it secured the powers of the legislature against the king and emphasised the doctrine of the undivided sovereignty of parliament. And later on in the 18th and 19th centuries ideals of fundamental law came to be superseded by utilitarianism, a scientific philosophy for whom the whole idea of rights as a standard by which to judge law was a superstition. For Bentham's famous comment that natural rights were nonsense and natural rights were nonsense on stillness. But in the 20th century, certainly the second half of the 20th century, utilitarianism has been in retreat and the dominant philosophies of law and government, such as those of Rawls and Warhead in America in particular, repudiated and find a lot more attractiveness in older ideas of fundamental rights. It's very difficult to accommodate rights within utilitarianism and indeed as Bentham argued in Parliament's sovereign, how can you have rights against power in Bentham's and the only rights you can have are legal rights, rights recognised in law. The idea of a moral right against power is nonsense. There's a conflict between utility and rights, but the climate today, the intellectual climate today I think makes it easier to understand what a number of British thinkers about sovereignty beginning with Hobbes I think didn't understand how the ideas of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law can come into conflict with each other. If you believe in parliamentary sovereignty, they don't understand you. So this principle, which is somehow there in Anglicato, that government should be subject to law, and in my view it's a more important principle than the democratic principle, because the danger of the democratic principle is the assumption sometimes made that a majority that has one power in a free election has the right to govern as it likes as it wishes. It's worth remembering that the Nazi party in two indubitably free elections in 1932 secured a far higher vote than any other political party in Germany, and before Hitler came to power he said that if we came to power legally we could then break through legality. The fundamental principle of democracy said rounds all power from the people, and then during the war in January 1941 Hitler said the National Socialist Revolution defeated democracy through democracy. It's also worth noting more recently in 1918 that Iranians voted in a free election for a democratic republic in which human rights are barely existing. Now, government under the law then means much more than elections. It means also that there must be respect and freedom for the opposition parties, free access to the press and other media, and independent judiciary with the power to check government, civilian control of the armed forces, the removal of the military from politics and above all respect for human rights. A wealth-functioning democracy cannot exist without these other phenomena. Indeed, I think it's arguable that the vote is the last rather than the first stage of creating a liberal democracy because universal franchise without the rule of law is as likely to lead to tyrannium or anarchy as it is as a democracy. And both Britain and the United States have governed such the law long before they became democracies. Indeed, you may argue Britain did not become a full democracy until comparatively recently in 1928 when women were given the vote on the same basis as men. But long before that British government had been regulated by the rule of law. And, of course, one of the signs of the constitutional democracy is that no one is above the law. And in the 1970s, Richard Nixon, the President of America, said when he was accused of criminal offences after the Watergate break-in that if the President does something it cannot be illegal. And the Watergate prosecutors proved him wrong and he was forced to resign the Presidents into avoiding the picture. And in Britain, the Lord Denig, as master of the role, has reminded the minister in one case in the 1970s, be you ever so high the law is above you. And, of course, this principle that no government is above the law is involved in most democracies in a written constitution, which we, of course, do not have. We are one of just three democracies without one, the others being New Zealand and Israel. If someone once said, the British constitution is not worth the paper it isn't written on. Now, there are a number of reasons why we haven't thought it desirable to put this principle of the rule of law into a constitution. And I think the main reason is that we've never really had a constitutional moment since the 17th century, that our system of government is marked by evolution and adaptation, without sharp breaks since the Civil War of the 17th century. And significantly after that experience with the Republic, we referred to 1660 as a restoration as if there had been no break at all. We've never had the breaks of continental countries. France, by contrast, has had 16 constitutions since 1789, since the French Revolution. The fifth current fifth republic is the second longest lasting one, though it has existed only for 57 years. The story told of someone who, in the 1950s, went to a shop in Paris to ask for a copy of the constitution and has told, I'm afraid we do not sell periodicals here. This pattern of constitutional development does differentiate Britain sharply from the constitution. You look at many countries on the continent, how recent their constitutions are. France in 1958, Germany in 1949, Italy in 1947, and most of the ex-communist countries of central and eastern Europe in the 1990s. Whereas our system of government gave back the same institutions of monarchy back before the Normand and Commonwealth Parliament in medieval times. This, I think, explains some of our difficulties in the European Union. The 19th century constitutional theorist, Dysi, said that our constitution was a historic constitution. By that, he meant not merely that our system of government was very old, but that it was a product of evolution, not designed or planned. It developed spontaneously. You can get together, and in no time have you got together, that this should be our system of government. It never happened. It developed spontaneously. There's a second reason, a principle, not a historical reason why we don't have a constitution. It is very obvious that if you hold a principle in sovereignty of parliament, there's no point in having a constitution. The British constitution could be summarised in eight words. What the Queen of Parliament demands is law. If you do ever have a constitution, the first consequence must be that parliament must formally abdicate its sovereignty. It was said in the 18th century, one constitutional theorist said that parliament could do anything it likes except turn a man into a woman, or a woman into a man. But even that's not true, because if parliament had to the purpose of the law, a man is a woman, a woman is a man, that would actually be the case. So you may say, well, what value does Magna Carta have if it is actually the mercy of parliament, or in effect of government, since after all most governments do have a majority of parliament, and governments in Britain have been limited, not by constitutions, but by non-legal rules called conventions, and in conventions there are certain things that no government would ever do. They're not illegal, but British government, but parliament could pass an enactment saying that all red-headed people should be executed next Monday. But in practice it would not do that, no. But the trouble with conventions is that their precise scope and nature are not always clear. Over a hundred years ago, one constitutional theorist declared that Britain was governed by a system of tacit understandings. But he said these understandings were not always understood, and perhaps the same is partly true today. But what we've seen, I think, in the last 45 years, and in particular I think the years since 1997, has been a constitutional revolution in Britain. The revolution began with our entry into the European community, as the European Union was then called in 1973, and continued with the devolution legislation of the late 90s, and fundamentally I think with the Human Rights Act. And I think these changes have fundamentally altered our system of government, and our competition, and the role of the rule of law in it. You may remember the story of Rick Van Winkley, who fell asleep for 20 years in 18th century America. And when he went to sleep, he remembered a pub called The George, and it had a picture of George III on it. When he woke up after 20 years, the pub was still called The George, but the picture of George III had been replaced by one of George Washington. Now I think we don't notice the changes, the same changes in our system, because we do not have a constitution. And the 19th century constitutional thinker Walter Gadget said, an ancient and ever-aughtering constitution such of the British is like an old man who wears with attacked homeless clothes in the fashion of his youth. What you see of him is the same, what you do not see is only altered. And first our entry into the European community marked a very fundamental difference, which we're changing, we're only just beginning to notice. Because it meant that there was a system of law, at least from the point of view of the European community, which was superior to that of Parliament. And this is very clear in our attitude, for example, to immigration. Now there are many people who say we would like to restrict immigration from the European Union into Britain. But this is something Parliament cannot do because it's an offence against the principle of the free movement of peoples which is in the Treaty of Rome, which we signed up to. So something that Parliament might want to do for something it cannot do for better or worse. Now, from the point of view perhaps of the British Parliament, the Parliament remains supreme, it could in theory perhaps, but it will repeal the European Community Act. But for the moment there is something that Parliament cannot do. And the most important case in 1991, the so-called Thattertain case, where for the first time in British history the courts refused to apply part of the statute, the Merchant Shipping Act, because it was contrary to European law. And this act restricted the rights of foreign fishermen to fish in British territorial waters. And the Spanish merchant ship brought a case against Britain, where the European court, as you'd expect, and this was illegal under European law and discriminatory, but what wasn't expected was that British court also said, we're not going to apply this law because the presumption is that Britain was intended to abide by the rules of the European Union. So that's a fundamental change and it limits, in my opinion, the sovereignty. But more fundamental still I think is the human rights act of 1998, because previously our rights were residual, that you could do anything you weren't prohibited from doing by law. But the human rights act sets out a list of positive principles based on the European Convention of Human Rights that determine what our rights are. And it's for the judges to interpret legislation in terms of what is a higher law than principles of the European Convention of Human Rights. Now, again, if you say that Parliament's sovereign, there can be no such higher law. There can be no law which Parliament can't change, no fundamental of constitutional law. Now, the Human Rights Act preserves that formally because the judges, if they believe that a statute or part of the statute that goes against the European Convention, they can't do what, for example, the American or German courts can do, they can't strike it down. What they can do is issue a declaration of incompatibility. They can say this statute is incompatible with the European Convention. Now, such a declaration has no legal force. It's a statement. It's a pure statement, no legal force. It's then up to Parliament to decide how to act. And there's a special speedy process by which Parliament can, if it wishes, overturn the offending statute or part of the statute. And in fact, on every occasion, it's fair to say, since the courts have issued such a declaration, on every occasion so far, Parliament has actually done it. It has put things right. It doesn't have to, but it has done so. It may be a convention is growing, but Parliament should always do that. We don't yet know whether that's true or not. And the human rights act, therefore, established that peculiarly British having compromise between two incompatible principles, the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. And I once asked a senior judge what would happen if these principles conflict, which they would easily do. Let's say that the courts found that a particular statute dealing with suspected terrorists went against the European Convention. And MPs then said, this is shocking. This is handicapping our ability to deal with terrorism. We can't have this. And the popular papers had headlines saying, you write your MP telling them to ignore these radical judges with their feet in the air and so on. And you tell them to go ahead and say, that could easily happen, populist pressure against an unpopular judicial decision. And I once asked a senior judge what happens if these two principles conflict the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law. And the judge smiled at me and said, that is a question that ought not to be asked. It's a more of a response to a logical level. So that, too, is, and let us say, I think the Human Rights Act is the most fundamental part of our new constitution, which provides for a compromise between two doctrines which you may think are conflicting. Now, what it means is that the main burden of protecting human rights is now with the judges. The role is going to become more influential. Now, many of these cases that judges deal with connecting with human rights are as I implied in what I said about terrorism. There are, they deal with the rights of very small and very unpopular minorities.  And life would be much simpler if victims of injustice were always attractive or nice people like ourselves, but they aren't. And probably our legal system is rather good at securing justice for nice people like ourselves. The Human Rights Act seeks to provide rights for everyone, whether they're nice or not. And that is, I think, the problem. Now, I think, as I indicated, the compromise of the Human Rights Act is fairly tenuous. And I thought, when the act was passed, that there would be a conflict between government and the judges. But I thought the conflict would not occur for quite a long time. And on that, I was wrong. The conflicts occurred much sooner than I thought. And as you know, the present government is promising to repeal the Human Rights Act and to replace it with a British Bill of Rights and responsibilities whose scope is as yet unclear. Now, I think it's remarkable how rapidly the Human Rights Act has led to a conflict between the government basing itself on the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament and the judges basing themselves on the principle of the rule of law. And this has come very, very rapidly. And it's come about because the act presupposes and assumes that there's a basic consensus between Parliament and the judges and that any infringements of human rights occur in adversity and unintended and therefore there's not going to be much disagreement between the government and the judges. But I think there is no such consensus when you come to the rights of unpopular minorities and I suspect if one took a survey here, people would disagree very strongly on these issues. And two matters in particular, issues concerning asylum seekers and issues concerning suspected terrorism have come to the fore since the Human Rights Act came into force. And these problems, of course, predated the act. They've grown in significance since the act was passed and they're very emotive and politicians believe that if they don't take action against them they will lose support in the country. And terrorism in particular, as we've seen in recent days, has taken on a different form since the Human Rights Act had passed. We were accustomed to that, to a different form of terrorism in the IRA which was, in a way, of what we might call old-fashioned form of terrorism with a single specific and concrete aim, mainly the reunification of the Ireland of Ireland. But now we face a problem of global terrorism more ruthless in form with wide, if not unlimited, aims amongst which is the establishment of a new confate. And apparently it has the terror of their terrorist cells in a large number of countries. And to deal with this new form of terrorism, the government argues, new methods are needed which may well infringe traditional views about human rights. Now the judges reply, we should not compromise our traditional principles, principles which have been tried and tested over many centuries, and served as well. And some senior judges have gone further. They've said that the natural consequences of the Human Rights Act should be an erosion of the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. They say the sovereignty of Parliament is a construct of the common law and if the judges can create it, they can equally justifiably supersede it. And in a landmark case in 2005, Jackson v. Attorney General which dealt with hunting, that's more strictly relevant, dealt with the validity of the Hunting Act. And judges for the first time declared, obiter, that Parliament's ability to pass legislation is limited in substance. And Lord Stane, the senior judge on the Supreme Court, said the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, while still being the general principle of our constitution, was a construct of the common law. The judges created this principle. If that is so, it is not unthinkable that circumstances could arise when the courts may have to qualify a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionism. And he said in exceptional circumstances, in both an attempt to abolish judicial review of the ordinary role of the courts, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or a new Supreme Court may have to consider whether this is a constitutional fundamental which even a sovereign Parliament acting at the behest of the House of Commons cannot abolish. And he's since elaborated by saying, this will be so if the government tried to tamper with the fundamental principles of constitution democracy, such as five-year parliaments, the role of ordinary courts in the ruling law. And another senior judge, Lady Hale said, the courts will treat with particular suspicion and might even reject any attempt to subvert the ruling law by removing governmental action affecting the rights of the individual from all judicial powers. And a Scottish judge, I think significantly a Scottish judge, because the Scottish law is the most skeptical of the sovereignty of Parliament, Lord Hope, said Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute. It is not uncontrolled. It is no longer right to say that it is treatment and legislated in the midst of no qualifications, whatever. Step by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute legislative Parliament is being qualified. And he said the rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling actor on which our constitution is based. Now the implication of these remarks is the sovereignty of Parliament, a doctrine created by judges which can be superseded by the judges. And they'd like to see this done. But the great constitutionist in the 19th century, Dicey, who really was the first to elaborate on the doctrine of sovereignty of Parliament, he said the roots of the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty lie deep in the history of the English people and in the peculiar development of the English constitution. Now can the judges on their own supersede that principle? Now survey evidence indicates, perhaps you won't be surprised to hear, that judges are trusted more than politicians. Now even so, would the people be prepared to grant the judges extra powers? Probably not. In 1997, the Labour government produced a white paper bringing rights home before the Human Rights Act in which it said there was no evidence that the public wanted judges to have the power to invalidate their decision. And perhaps nothing has changed since then, perhaps that's still the case. But whatever the state public opinion, it's clear, surely, that there's a conflict between these constitutional principles, the sovereignty of Parliament, and the rule of law. And this conflict could, in my view, be a rise to a constitutional crisis. And what I mean by a constitutional crisis is not simply there are differences of view in constitutional matters. That is to be expected and inevitable when any healthy democracy can differ about the constitution. I don't mean that. That is the difference of view as to how the conflict should be settled. Now, in any society, a balance has to be drawn between the rights of the individual and the needs of society for protection against terrorism, crime and so on. But the question is who do you believe should draw the balance of judges or the government? Now senior judges, I suspect, would say they've got a special role in protecting the rights of unpopular minorities. And they would say, in doing so, they are doing no more than applying the Human Rights Act as Parliament is asking to do. The government, and one suspects most MPs and much of the press, would disagree. They would say it's for them as elected representative to weigh the precise balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society. They would say they were elected not to the people when the judges are not. And they would say the Human Rights Act provides for the judges to review legislation but should not be an excuse for judicial supremacy. And they say if the judges or anyone else believes as a taste for Supreme Court of American lines they should make that case publicly and seek the explicit approval of Parliament and people. They should not seek to expand their role by self. Because there's a profound difference of views as to how these questions should be resolved. Governments say they should be resolved by Parliament. The judges think they should be settled by the court. And for that reason both sides are coming to believe that the other side is undermining the constitution. Government and Parliament say that judges are usurping power and seeking to thwart the will of Parliament. Judges say that government is infringing human rights and then attacking the judiciary of doing its job in reviewing legislation for its compatibility with the Human Rights Act. So the British constitution is coming to mean different things to different people. It is coming to mean something different to the judges from what it means to government, Parliament and many other public. So the argument from Parliamentary sovereignty points in one direction argument from the rule of law points in another. So there's going to be a conflict. How will it be resolved in the two outings? The first is Parliament succeeds in defeating the challenge of the judges and Parliamentary sovereignty is preserved. And the corollary would be that Parliament refuses in some future occasion to take notice of a declaration of incompatibility. The second possible outcome is the Human Rights Act comes to Trump Parliament and in practice a declaration of incompatibility by a judge comes to be the equivalent of striking down legislation. It's too early to tell which outcome is more likely to prevail. And what seems to be unlikely is that the compromise involved in the Human Rights Act can survive in the long run. I think we're present in a transitional period and eventually no doubt the constitution will be settled. Well there could prove a painful process and the path may be a difficult one with many schools and stores on the way. Now I think different members of the audience will have different views as to how this conflict should be resolved and perhaps it's not my job to persuade you of one view or the other. But let me make one point in conclusion and let me make it by quoting from Kiplio's famous poem called The Reeds of Runnymead when he said this as part of that When through our ranks the barons came with little thought of praise or blame but resolute to play the game they lumbered up to runnymead and there they launched in the solid time the first attack on right divine the curt and compromising sign that settled John at runnymead at runnymead at runnymead at runnymead your rights were won at runnymead the whole poem is well worth reading Now as I said earlier in the 17th century constitutional reformers repudiated the doctrine of divine right of kings right divine as Kiplio calls it Now do we replace that for the divine right of the people or parliament or governments against which the doctrine of national sovereignty offers no protection Are we going to yield to governments what we didn't in the past yield to kings namely un-channeled power Now one response might be well governments unlike kings are democratically elected but as I said earlier and I quoted from Hitler that a democracy can be the despotic is not more despotic than traditional government and Hitler's dictation is the worst I think in the 20th century that's the worst in history which came to power as a result of free elections and therefore it seems to me that if you believe in the rule of law ultimate power should lie not with parliament nor with the people but a constitution whether written or unwritten Now I accept that a constitution is not sufficient to protect human rights on the state which Hitler took over already had a very democratic and liberal constitution and a constitution may be necessary that's arguable but it certainly isn't sufficient and the condition of society in matters also and that's where Britain perhaps does work for well In the 19th century John Stuart Mill famously criticised Bentham for believing that a constitution was a mere set of rules or laws rather than a living organism represented of an evolving political morality and Dicey said that the quality of the legal system depended on the quality of the society which it served and he made what he may think is an arrogant statement that British were more confident in the 19th century now and he said the rule of law of the predominance of the legal spirit may be described as a special attribute of English institutions and what he meant was that our law rested upon a public opinion that supported the protection of human rights and he wrote a famous book on the constitutional law of the constitution but he wrote another important book called Law and Public Opinion in the 19th century to complicate it because he said the protection of rights depends not only on laws and institutions but a spirit faithful to human rights and perhaps that spirit originated with Magna Carta and perhaps that is why we are celebrating Magna Carta in the 800th anniversary Thank you


When I was growing up, my mother didn't believe in doctors because she grew up through a country, small village, they didn't have doctors. Where did she grow up? She's Korean, and her cure-all for an upset stomach was shoving a carrot down our throat. Carrots? Yes, carrots down our throat, and if we threw up, she was like, Steve, it was a belly ache. You know what? Not always.


So if you guys don't mind, I'll take this one first because I am very knowledgeable about this just from pretty much experience. I guess you can say and I guess I want to touch on the second one. What are the long term implications of adoption to short term problem. I think short well it had been a long term problem. But what it was trying to solve was obviously the cost of publishing textbooks you know to have students to have to buy that and stuff. And so they came up with hey let's offer these digital textbooks with homework platforms that will help faculty but also give it less to students. However that has not been my experience. What has happened instead and the symptom you know that ended up creating was it actually cost us more. I am not the only one right now in college actually all six of us are in college so that's four kids and my husband and myself and my daughter for instance my daughter my husband are both taken econ right now. Both of them had to pay $75 a person for inclusive access now. There was no way around it they had to get to do the course and to do the homework they had to have this. And what we would normally do for instance we me and my husband took history together we share the textbook we found it cheap we found it free and we're able to get it that way so sometimes and actually every time inclusive inclusive access or access codes have been involved. I'm going to pay more than I would have had I found a publisher's textbook and so I think what it's doing is it's it's stripping away the rights to share a book to buy it used to look for other. You know books you know compare them to and stuff because with the state of Tennessee has done again from the research is they made a contract with one of the inclusive access to in hopes of lowering the price. You know and then all these you know and they had a digital engagement initiative and everything to get these teachers on board and stuff. You know but they have to sell so many to get that price well and doing that they have created special codes just for that campus. And so therefore even if we were to have found inclusive access somewhere else for cheaper we can't use it we have to buy it from the campus so we are locked into purchasing that particular one from that campus. What does that also create if they didn't pay for that they're either dropping the course or they're making pretty much an F because everything is behind that paywall.  So the longer you know implications of this is you're locking a lot of students out that can't afford it. I mean where they might have been able to borrow a friend or get it from the library or even you know skip it just not even have it. They can't you can't even do the homework anymore and I think that's the huge takeaway that professors need to take with it. I get that it might be more time on your hand. But we're there to empower students. And I think that we need to remember that the students need to be focused and sometimes inclusive access is not including everybody. And we're locking people out. You know we've worked so hard you guys have worked so hard to break a lot of barriers and instead this is just the larger implication of something you know more. And then the other thing I'd like to bring up is you know we live in rural areas. And I know Matthew even said hey you know we're getting ready to have three people on the Internet at one time. You know there are students here that didn't even have the Internet and it really showed its head of course during covid you know when everybody went online and stuff. And we need to think about you know if we're doing this you know homework behind the paywall. Who are we affecting where is those students that might have been able to take courses that weren't online or didn't have this online implications. Who are we knocking those out and it's probably a lot of lower income students. So I apologize that was long but this is my baby right here.


I heard over the radio we're taking contact and that's when I yeah we should we that was I don't want to say I was mad I got one UK at least I killed it I killed the chief I killed the chief yeah there's one there's one dead bad guy outside of it it's inside that building do not move your position new and link


Hi and welcome to the session. I am Deepika here. Let's discuss the question. The question says is it possible to design a rectangular park of perimeter 80 meter and area 400 meters square? If so, find its length and breadth. We know that perimeter of a rectangle is equal to twice length plus breadth and area of a rectangle is equal to length into breadth. So this is a key idea behind the above question. So let's start the solution. Let breadth of the rectangle is equal to x meter. Given perimeter is equal to 80, this implies twice length plus breadth is equal to 18. Now our breadth is x meter. This implies twice length plus x is equal to 80. This implies length plus x is equal to 40. This implies length is equal to 40 minus x. Now area of the rectangle is given to us 400 meters square. This implies length into breadth is equal to 400 meters square. This implies length is of 40 minus x and breadth we have assumed x meter. Therefore 40 minus x into x is equal to 400 meter square. Again this implies 40x minus x square is equal to 400. This implies x square minus 40x plus 400 is equal to 0. Now this is a quadratic equation on comparing with a x square plus b x plus c is equal to 0. We get a is equal to 1, b is equal to minus 40, c is equal to 400. Now discriminant b square minus 4ac is equal to minus 40 square minus 4 into 1 into 400 which is equal to 1600 minus 1600 which is equal to 0. Because discriminant b square minus 4ac is equal to 0, therefore the roots are equal and real. Now we will find the roots. Hence it is possible to design a rectangular park whose perimeter is 80 meter and area is 400 meter square. Now we will find the roots. Let alpha and beta be the roots of the equation. Now we know that for equal roots alpha is equal to minus b by 2a because discriminant is 0. Therefore alpha is equal to minus b by 2a and beta is also equal to minus b by 2a. Therefore alpha is equal to minus of minus 40 upon 2 into 1 and beta is equal to minus of minus 40 upon 2 into 1. Therefore alpha is equal to 20 and beta is equal to 20. Hence the length and the breadth of a rectangular park are 20 meter and 20 meter. Hence our answer is yes it is possible to design a rectangular park of perimeter 80 meter and area 400 meter square. And its length is 20 meter and breadth is also 20 meter. I hope the question is great to you. Bye and have a good day.


From New York, it's theCUBE. Covering Big Data New York City 2016. Brought to you by headline sponsors, Cisco, IBM, NVIDIA, and our ecosystem sponsors. Now, here are your hosts, Dave Vellante and Jeff Frick. We're back, this is theCUBE, this is Big Data NYC. We are the worldwide leader in live tech coverage. Intamar and Corian is here as the CMO of Attunity. Welcome to theCUBE, good to see you. Thank you very much, good afternoon. It's great to be here. So, Attunity has been part of what we call Big Data Week since the beginning. We've been doing this, gosh, seven years now. Seven years. And I think Attunity's been there most of the years. We've been tracking you guys. So, give us the update, what's new with you guys? Well, this has been a very exciting time for us, as you mentioned. They've passed few years growing and innovating with the Big Data market as it's been evolving and we're trying to stay ahead and with the customers, with the adoption, as new technologies come to market, as new type of implementations and use cases, customers trying to adopt new platforms. So, it's been very exciting for us. I think especially the last year, year and a half, as we've seen more customers start to move to production and start to implement more large scale type of deployments, more real time deployments. So, it's been an exciting time. So, what do you see as the mega trends that are driving that growth? You mentioned real time. Obviously, big data slash a dupe getting into the enterprise. Remember, the trend was make it enterprise ready, make it hard, and we're kind of through that, right? What are the big kale wins? That's a great question. And we're seeing a few of them today. I think if you go back down to the show floor, you'll see that there's a lot of conversation about real time, new technologies like Spark Streaming, Kafka, in-memory processing. So, a lot of options in which to use real time to innovate and create new types of analytic processing, that requires feeding data in real time, which again, for us, fit very well into what we've been focusing on, which is to enable customers to capture data in real time as it changes across all the transactional and database systems, which for many customers, is most important, most common data sources for the business operations. You're being able to turn those databases into live feeds that stream directly into your analytic process is something we've been focused on. So again, the real-time thing is a big trend. You see it in new technologies coming to market. You see it in just the hype and the discussions, both of customer interest is all about. And again, from our perspective, we have focused on integrating our products, optimizing them for delivering data in real time into a diverse variety of options, depending on the type of analytic platforms where customers may want to process data in real time. So previously this year, we've added support for example for Kafka. So being able to take data that we capture as databases change in real time and being able to feed that into Kafka in a format that is appropriate, is aligned with the type of processing that customers want to do. So that is definitely one of those trends, the real-time trend. Where are you seeing the most success? Is that you've seen in particular industries or use cases or where is the traction? So we're seeing an activity across multiple different type of industries. We're seeing a lot in financial services, banking, insurance, and these are industries that have a lot of data built into the business model. Retail, manufacturing, so healthcare. So we're definitely seeing the activity across a lot of different industries. And what's interesting, we're seeing two types of projects that drive it. One is a very specific analytic application. So our customers are very specific analytic problem they're trying to solve. They know that very well. It's really stemming from a very specific business question. And they're building an infrastructure to support that specific application. On the other hand, we're seeing customers that are building infrastructure. They recognize that data is gonna change their business. They want to become more data-oriented companies. And they're building data lakes as a foundation. So they may not have a specific application or a specific use case yet in mind. They have a few that they're thinking about, but they wanna make sure they're building the right infrastructure to accommodate it and enable different data scientists to build applications. So we're seeing these two different types of scenarios. It's not limited to one of the others. What we have seen is that on the data lake side, to your question there, we're seeing that they're starting to move more in production and they're trying to grow in scale. So if I mentioned earlier real-time being one of the key trends, I think the other thing we're seeing is scale. So if when we talk about real-time technologies like CDC changed data capture, which is part of our core technology to capture changes and make them available in a very efficient real-time manner, when we look at scale, what we're seeing is that customers are starting to scale as they move to production from having a smaller initial set of data feeds that they're ingesting into the lake to having a much larger number of data feeds they're ingesting. So now we're talking about many dozens going to hundreds with plans to go to thousands of data feeds from databases all over the world going into the data lake, where they're merging that data with sometimes IoT or other data, social data that together can create new types of analytics. However, as they're scaling it, what we're seeing is customers are running into interesting challenges they need to address. One, being the cost of development. So if every feed requires a development effort and there's a lot of them, that becomes challenging. The formula for time to market for cost becomes challenging. So what we've done in the Trinity is we focused on making the process of creating a feed of putting one in place easy. So it's configurable, it's a configuration environment with an application that's designed to handle data ingest in an optimized manner rather than a development custom scripting type of activity. That takes away the issue of the development being a bottleneck for scale. The other is around agents because as you scale, what happens is that you want to support a lot of databases. Some of the traditional technologies use agents. They deploy agents on each database source or close to it to be able to identify changes, harvest them and enable you to bring those into your lake. However, as you're scaling to support hundreds and maybe more, starting to install, maintain, configure agents across a wide network of environments that doesn't scale well. So again, that's where we focus on creating agentless technology. We refer to it as zero footprint environment and that again allows to scale easily without a big impact on the IT environment. You said there's just so many vectors of growth. You've got how many data sources, you've got how much data is coming down that sources. I would imagine it's how much you open up the pipe and allow the percentage of data from that source. All those things are going up really, really rapidly and then there's this pesky thing that I like to talk about maintenance and keeping up with these things. So how are people addressing that challenge? Do they just open up one pipe? Do they do a little bit and then open and move to more sources? How do you manage this increasing complexity and scale while you're still keeping the airplane in the air? That's a great question, especially maybe with my ELFOS background. Oh, there you go. Keeping the airplane in the air. But no doubt that, first of all, addressing the diversity is very important and what we focused on was creating an heterogeneous platform that enables to decouple between sources and targets so you can scale the number of sources and the Atunity Platform, Atunity Replicate, it is again an enterprise platform, a unified platform for data replication and ingest. It costs a wide variety of systems. So it spans databases, data warehouses, of course Hadoop, Kafka, on-premise in the cloud. So it gives you a platform that enables you to get data into a lot of different places. And many of our customers start with one project they may want to bring the data into the lake or maybe they started by bringing it into a data warehouse but then they find that they also want to bring it into Kafka. So it goes to Spark or it goes to other environments like Cassandra or they want to bring it into the cloud. So yes, it starts to evolve. And we're actually seeing more customers refer to this as a unified universal type of infrastructure. So they recognize they need to put in place type of systems that will give them the agility, give them the flexibility to get data to all these different places. So both supporting a lot of sources, a lot of targets and having the optimizations that are required for each one of them. That's what we're focusing on in the Trinity Replicant. And you've made announcements recently to support these areas or can you take us through that? Yes, we have. Last week we had big announcement again, expanding the footprints of the endpoints of the systems that we're able to ingest and bring data from. And last week we had an announcement around supporting SAP. So SAP is one of the largest, the largest application market with tens of thousands of customers. And of course some of the world's largest companies running SAP. So their core business data is in SAP. The challenge is that getting data from SAP and merging it into other data in the data lake, for example, is challenging because the inherent structure, it's a big application, it's complex. Knowing what data you may need to be out of SAP, being able to do that in real time is challenging. So we have very unique IP related to SAP integration. We've merged it into a Trinity Replicate. And now we can completely facilitate the process of getting SAP data out of SAP in real time very efficiently with integrity, unpacking complex structures of SAP so that once the data lands in Hadoop or may develop it through Kafka or may develop it through Spark or in a database, it's now laid out in a format that is accessible and easily available for developers and data scientists and other users. So that was SAP. And yesterday we made another announcement related to the growth of data lakes. So what we've seen is that as data lakes grow and as more feeds come to it, the issue of operationalizing that environment and managing that at scale becomes an issue. So it's not just the ease, it's not just the efficiency, but we now have customers that are growing to hundreds of feeds. If you have hundreds of feeds across multiple servers that get the job done, how do you manage it? How do you get control over that entire environment? Because if you're going to run it in production, if the operation allows it, you need to have control. So now we have a whole system that supports and extends the Atunity Replicate, it's called the Atunity Enterprise Manager. And that system basically collects information, it can find all the replicate servers, automatically get all the information from them, provide you an easy way to monitor, group, sort, drill down into a wide variety of hundreds of tasks across servers and be able to control them as well as get notifications. So we think that innovation, we're now enabling customers to operationalize and manage the data ingress at scale as they're growing and their data lakes in production. So part of the problem we've heard with the data lakes and everybody, you know, they joke about data swamps, et cetera, but you got this no schema, you put everything in the data lake and then it's like, okay, now what? You just sort of kick the can down the road in terms of actually applying some kind of structure to the data lake. Does Enterprise Manager in a part anyway solve that problem? Is that specifically what you're going after or is it somewhat different? That's a good question, thanks, Dave. So Enterprise Manager, as we've defined today, is really focused on the management and the operations, not on metadata management, where basically the way we see it, we want to integrate with metadata environments, you know, whether it's the Cloudera or whether it's the Apache and Hortonworks, metadata environments that will help companies understand the lineage and all the information around the cataloging or the information that they have within the lake. So these are all foundations of building a data lake from data ingest, which is really what we're focused on, to cataloging and understanding it, to doing the actual data preparation, data analytics, and we try to feed all of that in a way that accommodates all this stack within the data lake. You want to keep the data lake looking like Lake Tahoe, not like the swamp that it can be with all kind of various inputs and things, but really the opportunity, as you say, to more kind of non-traditional data sources to feed what have been kind of a big data process, like the SAP example, really again, kind of a next order of impact in terms of taking advantage of the big data technology. Absolutely, absolutely, because the challenge is how quickly you can get the data and make it available for analytics, how can you make it available in different formats because there's so many different types of analytics customers want to use. And the one other thing I'll mention, because you were talking about different trends, is where people are doing the analytics. And one of the interesting other trends that we have been seeing is beyond the real time, and we talked about the scale is cloud. So where is it that they are deploying? So we're seeing, definitely seeing more demand. We're seeing a trend toward deploying Hadoop and other technologies in the cloud. So then when you think about it, the cloud is kind of a very typical environment you'd expect to run analytics in. It aligns well with analytics because of its natural elastic capabilities. So we see a lot of customers that start in the cloud as a way to run development QA. So they're developing, they're experimenting in the cloud because that's easy. But the production Hadoop may still be on-prem. And then we see more and more that also look to move their data lake or their Hadoop environment to the cloud, running either just deploying their Hadoop cluster in the cloud, whether it's on Amazon or Azure, for example, or using services. So Hadoop is a service like EMR, HDI, Azure and the likes, Azure data lake. So that's what we're seeing. And with the Trinity, we put optimizations that facilitate the movement of data also to those environments in the cloud.  Yeah, the cloud has definitely taken hold. We knew it was coming, right? Everybody sort of saw it coming, but now it's like, wow, it's here. So you got to react to that. I'll give you the last word, we're out of time. But what do you want to leave our audience with in terms of big data week, strata Hadoop, future of Atunity? I think this is really exciting times. I think that we're seeing tremendous growth and opportunities to analyze data, bring new types of data. We're especially excited about customers bring together their core transactional business data with IoT data or other types of data. So what I want to leave customers with is that we're going to continue to innovate around enabling analytics and around enabling efficiencies for managing and integrating big data for analytics. We keep focused on enabling data ingest and doing that in a much easier way, broader portfolio of sources, targets and environments like the cloud. We work very closely with Amazon, with Microsoft, with Google, we're going to keep expanding that. We're going to continue to focus on helping companies optimize their data world, so broader data world environments between their data world of choice over the years and their Hadoop environment. We have software that helps to analyze all of that so they can understand where to run what. So again, we're going to continue to help companies get data and manage it better so they get more value out of it. All right, thank you very much. Thanks for coming to theCUBE. It's good to see you. Pleasure, thank you for the time. You're welcome. All right, keep it right there, everybody. We'll be back with our next guest. This is theCUBE. We're live from Big Data NYC. Right back.


Live from San Jose, California, in the heart of Silicon Valley, it's theCUBE. Covering Hadoop Summit 2016, brought to you by Hortonworks. Now, here are your hosts, John Furrier and George Gilbert. Welcome back everyone, we are live here inside theCUBE here at Hadoop Summit 2016, live in San Jose in Silicon Valley for SiliconANGLE Media's theCUBE, our flagship program, we go out to the event and extract the signal from the noise. I'm John Furrier, we're with my co-host, George Gilbert, Big Data Analyst at Wikibon, our next guest, Sean Connolly, Vice President of Corporate Strategy at Hortonworks, always great to have on theCUBE and get the 3D chessboard laid out. Welcome back. How's it going, John and George? How's the 3D chessboard look like now? Because the ecosystem is flourishing, still trying to get the simplification, still trying to get the lower total cost of ownership, but with Docker containers going crazy, we just had Docker gone. Every single major vendor has pretty much stood up their path, it's a partnering world, it's a developer ecosystem, it's an enterprise simplicity, with interoperability, with data everywhere, and IoT right around the corner.  The dimensions. How are we doing? Historical and real time around data, right? Then you have the containerization stuff which makes it easy to deploy and that's another vector. Then you have basically the prevalence of cloud and data center deployments which adds another twist into it. So I think that this technology space is really moving in very interesting ways. I think the ultimate goal will be how do you get these modern data applications that can help drive new insurance models or what have you? How do you get them deployed quickly and easily? And I think the room, particularly in his keynote, covered a little bit of that. Take a minute to summarize that because I want you to explain that to the audience because again, it is kind of complicated. There is pressure for the enterprises to deploy faster while they're re-architecting and re-platforming the enterprise. There is need for modern apps and some sequencing that can be done. Obviously, every use case is different, but take us through specifically what was talked about on stage around this modern app. Share an example if you can. Yeah, so we refer to this sort of the architecture and re-platforming as a connected data architecture that basically embraces the fact that you have data moving in real time, everywhere from the edge, from connected cars, connected cities or what have you, to traditional data that might be one-prem or collected even from manufacturing line data, right? And so being able to get connected car data in the here and now and operational stuff, being able to analyze that with manufacturing line data so you could do root cause issues that might be on the road today from that operational data, that is a hyper-connected world. That's data's born in the cloud, data's born in the data center, and how do you actually enable these new apps that need access to that data when they need it, where they need it, right? And so I think that was the theme, if you will, of the keynotes this morning and the conference, and you have these really cool technologies that are related, things like Docker and others, that are, I refer to Docker as laying the new light rail, if you will, for these new applications to be able to run wherever they need to run in a very lightweight way. And so that's really redefining sort of the substrate, if you will, that is going on. What's the impact of Docker and the container trend, which obviously is massive and exploding, to the Hadoop data ecosystem? Because that's traditionally been a great way for developers at the front end, application developers to put stuff in a container and let the infrastructure as code devops do its piece. Has it simplified your world or has it made it more complex? So back in 2009, I had conversations with the fidelities of the world, et cetera, as platform as a service technologies and cloud was just starting to emerge. And so the application-centric approach to things, one of the things they said back then was you also need to solve the data problem, right? And so you need to get the application logic to where it needs to be, and if the data's in the cloud or on-prem, you need it to be portable, right? So I think they go hand in glove in an architecture. Increasingly, applications are data-driven applications. And so that agility, that devops agility of getting that logic where it needs to be, I think is a perfect compliment to what we're doing in the big data ecosystem, so. So we're seeing, every 10 years or so, we see the pendulum swing and a different architecture emerges.  How is that taking shape? And we hear of all the different projects, but help us paint a picture of how all the pieces fit together. Sure, so I think there's a couple of ways platform vendors can approach things. One is to sort of centralize things and come out around the one place that you need to do all your work, right? When we started Hortonworks, we actually had a many philosophy because in the open source realm, if you look at it, the age of data is being driven mostly from the Apache Software Foundation. And each week or each month, there's a new technology that's a data related technology that's being established in there. So what you need to do is you need to set a architectural substrate that is built for onboarding new innovation when it arrives, right? And so to your point is, yes, you need centralized operations, security and governance, but you also need a platform that's built for receiving innovation in a consistent way, in an agile way, and in a way where that innovation can run on cloud or on-prem. And so that's not going to stop. It's exponentially increasing curve of innovation. So I want to just kind of shift real quick on just to interject George's question. That's a great advice. I know you guys have done that. That's one of your things that you have done in your career, other places, now Hortonworks, where you look at and monitor digitally because they're all connected, developers, IRC back channel to Slack, now all these community forums. It's the GitHub generation, as I refer to all the developers. So how are you guys doing? Share your experience on how Hortonworks has been building that substrate. How have you been successful and how would that translate to potential customers to take that best practice? Yeah, so I always like to answer that question by basically going in the morning keynotes, listen to progressive insurance, listen to Capital One on their cybersecurity story. It's making use of the emerging technologies around NIFI and Storm and Kafka, meets Hadoop and Spark and in an integrated architecture for cyber threat analytics, right? These stories at this event are really the true telling of being able to deploy a flexible architecture that enables them to onboard the innovation and unlock new business models. Just to try to pin you down on this for a second. So the substrate is what? Core technologies that the open source community has built on. Productizing it in a way that enterprises can actually depend on it to George's earlier point, right? Where it doesn't have the operational, consistent operational experience, consistent security experience, et cetera. So you need to appeal to both sides. I wanted to ask Rob this didn't have time for it, but when I sat down with my one-on-one exclusive, which it's on the crowd chat, go to YouTube and search Rob Bearden. You'll see I had a one-on-one sit down 20, almost 50 minutes of interview. I asked him the question, I'll ask you the same question. What's the Hortonworks growth strategy? Obviously, and in context to that, there's your competitors like Cloudera that are private. Sure. Worth billions of dollars. Your market cap today is like half a, just over half a billion. So significantly undervalued, vis-a-vis the privates, you have a softening of the market right now with privates doing down rounds. So you're seeing, you guys have been public and have been like, hey, we're going to put it out there. You're not really having really pivoted anywhere. So you're out in the open. Our business is as transparent as our code, as I like to say. Which is a good answer, by the way. You're out there. However, what's the dynamic in the ecosystem because there are a lot of people bleeding right now that are private companies. We've seen some down rounds. We've seen some pivots. What does that mean? Is it just a systematic of the capital markets? Does it point to the ecosystem? And how does your growth strategy get through all this mess? And Rob will answer it in a different way. I have a more direct blunt way of phrasing it is, I never get hung up on what private valuations, unicorn nonsense, right? Is that's a false factor on valuing the impact that customers are getting from technology. What really matters is what are the stories and how are those companies using the technology transforming their business? John Deere transforming from a tractor company to an analytics company. Analytics down to the planted seed level type thinking. So I think that's the more interesting thing. So from a business perspective, I focus the business one. We're in the- All right, so just to get to the next level, I get that. How the customers use it, that's a reflection of the company. But there is a psychology of companies that have employees that are under pressure to create revenue. So if I have a high valuation, the pressure from either the management team and the board of directors is to go public, get some liquidity, or raise another round. So there are potentially pressure situations that could impact the customer. Are you seeing that or is that not an issue? Not in our space. We have a renovate cost savings vector and we have an innovation unlock new innovations use cases. So the reality is the technology space that we're in is helping most of the companies bend the curve in troubling times. So you're on the innovation curve. And in a way where it helps them address both the cost side and the top line revenue side. So we have- But the cost is a consequence of the innovation. Exactly. And you're doubling your- And the model, right? The subscription model, the harnessing innovation to bring it in, integrate with existing assets, those types of things. So from a subscription perspective, I think the other evolution, which you're going to hear, like we had Microsoft demoing a Hadoop Spark experience in the cloud is, you know, we transition from every year's an election year in a subscription business to every hour is an election hour in the cloud business, right? So it's about enabling customer success. You mean the customer's ability to buy more basically? Yeah. Vote with their checkbook. Right, and that's the ultimate success metric, right? Is are they deploying more? Are they growing? Are they solving real problems? Because if they're not, then the next election hour is they turn it off, right? And so that excites me from a business perspective. That's a new dynamic in open source. Yep. In a way. Yep, yep. Got it, George.  Usually then there's an abstraction for lack of a better term where developers can see this platform as a whole. But we're also seeing the emergence of the cloud native services, whether it's, you know, Amazon, Kinesis Firehose, DynamoDB, Redshift. Azure HD Insight, right? Yep. HD Insight, but they don't have to be used in isolation. They can mix and match other native services in there. And we talked about that. They can mix and match other native services, but they can also, in a connected data architecture, integrate with your on-premises solutions as well. Right. Because that's the reality of many large companies their inherently high, their data is inherently hybrid. All right. Okay. And so they need to connect that architecture. Embrace the emerging cloud native services, but bring along their existing investments that may be on-prem as well. So without naming competitors, let's say customers, maybe because of the high overhead cost of admins with specialized skills as, you know, companies get smaller, the customers get smaller, they want to do more in the cloud. Where are some of the other distro vendors in harmonizing the experience for the developer and the admin on-prem and on the cloud? So I tend to not follow competitive landscape as much as what the cloud offers me as a software platform vendor is I'm able to be able to create very prescriptive environments for data science with full tooling and environment for doing that work in the cloud. If you're an ETL focused person, you can do your curation and your data munging in a very prescriptive way. One-prem, you're able to run those mixed workloads in a shared data lake. In the cloud, you actually can spin up very focused targeted use cases, right? And so from creating technology that solves very specific problems, the cloud really offers me a great way to connect with a very targeted set of users, right? So there may be a billion users in total using this platform from BI to data scientists or what have you, but you can actually create a much more prescriptive experience in the cloud and boot it up instantaneously. That's really exciting because that basically is the path to productivity is instantaneous, right? There's no hardware expenditure up front. You just swipe your credit card and you go. That's exciting. There's still work to do on your party in terms of if you have a scenario for the data scientist or the ETL developer or whatever, you have to make that experience so it hides everything behind it. Seamless, prescriptive, minimal knobs and dials, right? It's great that you have a hundred ways to configure it, but for my use case, what's the prescriptive way so I can just go do my job, right? Prescriptive means a combination of on-prem and in the cloud or one or the other. Yes, typically I think in the cloud you can actually be far more prescriptive because it's more instantaneous, right? All right, Sean, thanks for coming on, sharing your insights on theCUBE. Appreciate it, a quick final word. The difference between this event in Dublin, obviously the two conferences, you know by the way we have our new crowd pages.co slash Hadoop, some which is our, we call Cube 365. All the videos will be there, we're engaging the site. The vibe between the two event windows, obviously Dublin here, great innovation show, a lot of education, theme change, extension, what's the difference? So I think it's an evolution of where the market is. I think the European audience focuses a little bit more on the pragmatic use cases and adoption, very similar use cases like British gas with connected homes and smart meters and things like that, but you'll hear more technology in sort of the next wave at a San Jose event. Just a big tent event. Okay, Sean Connolly, Vice President of Corporate Strategy at Horton works here inside theCUBE at Hadoop Summit. This is the premiere show for the open source, big data community around Hadoop and all the different communities. I'm John Furrier, George Gilbert, you're watching theCUBE right back.


All right good afternoon cyber traders welcome on back here this Tuesday afternoon June 6th shortly after 2 30 p.m Eastern time great to have all this back on social media Facebook live LinkedIn Twitter YouTube the works great to have all this back Of course inside our live trading room here the cyber group room John Jeff and all of us just here joining us right now I'll tell you what it's been a really good day all together from the morning up until this very Up until this very second so great to have Leda and Lauren still with us right now loud and clear from them We have the AI trade on the screen here to begin You know make a nice bounce right now from 37 the real level that we were following on this trade was actually dated back to a last Tuesday it was right just back from the 30th the beginning of last week that 37 61 weekly open price So coming off our weekly workshop earlier today traders talk well We had our focus on that price and it was breaking above it pulling back under it But and just use it as a level right ended up just showing multiple breaks above it earlier So with already the amount of buying interest that we have off of it I was looking for the bounce here at the point it broke under it didn't break back above it So there's no entry it kept dropping Okay, well when a stock breaks under support like that support should initially at least initially like the literal first test Look for it to become a resistance So the first touch there once again and just the more times it nips it you look for that pop that big move Shortly after so this could be easy to say coming into this meeting But just read the chat the whole time here. We were focused on 37 61 and the break over it So hopefully now this makes a much better play for us going into the close It's already been a great play from the morning session But you know with the amount of buying interest we have off of that price and now let alone off 38 it's been sluggish off 38 and You know we need this to break over 3850 really for this to make the better run So, you know from myself on this one above 37 61 It's not as if every dollar is going to be equally as strong. So 38 I mean, yeah, there was a couple of icebergs there throughout like the early afternoon But look at what's ahead of 3850. I mean was there since the late morning going into the early afternoon So for about 38 39,000 shares the first test of it right here it held it held and dropped So, you know now at this point just if this wants to make the cleaner push up much higher up to perhaps even 40 It needs it needs to make that cleaner break out above that 3850 first So definitely to put AI back on our list. How can we not just the way it looks, you know It's up over 5% and at the high So, you know, it's just more of a level three to four stock Maybe the faster it goes you could perhaps go to five category But you know, it's just more or less to say this is a very volatile stock And we covered this in the traders talk workshop earlier this morning, too Yeah, especially even in terms of trading options We even you know twisted around talking about how do you could know just use book map level for an order to buy puts or Calls on a trade in this case really off of 37 just earlier and then now just ended up breaking above that, you know 37 61 so I don't have the call price on AI at the time there But we were talking about it from the morning session at this stage now We're just looking for the higher hot hopefully sooner than later here So alongside AI we have Palantir Palantir not up nearly as much not moving nearly as well Even if it were to become a lot faster of a trade, I'd still say it's not as crazy as the AI trade So I would really want this to have a you know nice kick up pretty soon We were looking for that to be the case off of 1535 that big green line now is going into noontime here So it's been really holding underneath that 1550 level pretty synonymous with AI holding underneath that 38 50 ish So I'm not as inclined to put PLTR on there just yet good sideless stock good tradeable stock Otherwise and if you did well on it from the morning then certainly I'm sure you're more inclined to follow it for the close But I think there's a lot to work with there's really a lot that we can kind of sink our teeth into go into this afternoon So no AI good start For all this inside the live trading room, you know where I'm going to next get lab Nailed this trade. We'll talk about this at least or we talked about this in our traders talk workshop earlier We'll post a couple of videos of that just on our YouTube channel I'll just be able to look out for that just later on this afternoon going into tomorrow post a couple of day properly there But no we talked about GitLab and the earnings that they had from yesterday afternoon the big bounce off of 42 4245 that was and led to a huge squeeze So I still in on this trade actually right from that price ended up taking half my position out earlier It was right off 46. I took half the trade out and since I mean Hey, it's been holding pretty nicely and perhaps you could say up until this very point because now it's beginning to make a pullback here and retest this historical level 4640 ish that area historical from the daily or weekly chart and For my trade sake, I'd rather this hold here and pop up higher But doesn't look like that's gonna be the case So I told a couple of us earlier in the chat board this stock seems to become a little bit more exhausted right now at this point So might just be a good time to take the money and run in full I'm gonna keep an eye on this as we go through and then I'll yank the trade if it gets you know any lower from here But Get lab get hub get lab. We'll put that on our list here for right now the main list All right, so let's go from top to bottom We had the hot trade from pre-market and we had a couple of others earlier as well big lots up big I know Michael brought that up earlier. So let's see what we got I mean, this is a gap fill now at this point We talked about this as well just being a pop and drop stock even back from last year history has a tendency to repeat itself so You don't want to get caught sleeping there and well this looks like we've been sleeping on this trade so far BMR Wow a big right now breaking above three already up 50 cents off that level Again pop and drop type play dating back to last month and the last month Maybe like a couple weeks ago even ended up making a big move seemingly overnight into the morning and it popped up But then pulled back and tanked so Be careful on this trade, but for right now it makes the list good call for right now on this BMR. They squeeze Get lab for right now again just kind of holding that support the more times it nips it I really do believe it's going to smash under it I was looking for 46 to hold at minimum earlier and it did So really got to see higher lows continue or equal lows at that, but let's see what else we got Qbts nice squeeze on this even dating back to last month, you know Just from like 60 or 50 cents all the way up There was a trade earlier micro vision Mavis, right? I mean just taking a look at this on the daily chart easy to say things had a hell of a squeeze up lately Wow, and I don't think we've really focused on these trades day over day like this So, you know nice to see happen can't you know go back on everything and say oh, I should have done this should have done that Oh, that was a great swing now if we live our lives like that Then we're never gonna actually learn why we're doing what we're doing. So, you know with that there I mean the Qbts trade I mean making lower highs, you know made a nice move earlier So for right now right on write it down for the side list at least and Then the Mavis trade for right now showing a higher low trending back up pretty well here So you want to see this make a move closer back up to the high sooner than later, but for right now This makes the cut. I like this trade Mavis this one we've at least been pretty familiar with we have some good experience But it's not even back from there, but from the last year and a half I mean really dating back to COVID probably not as if it was a COVID stock, but with just the market exploding back then This was a short squeeze. So we're pretty familiar with this Mavis stock just from the last year and a half two years Call it Mavis micro vision. I get you get it from Fausto He nicknames a lot of stocks that we call out in the room, right? So I get it from him, you know, MVIS It's actually micro vision not Mavis Big and we can't really name this nickname this otherwise. You're right It's just big big lots end up making a big push early this morning And for now making a pretty decent squeeze back up again towards the VWAP price right now I just for a stock that's near the highs I'd rather focus on so it's not exactly there has a ways to go I feel like this stock more than anything is exhausted kind of similar to GitLab except there's a difference between GitLab and That and this is much closer to the highs right now. So You know if you did well in big lots earlier, then definitely put it on your list for tomorrow I'm gonna write it down for my side list automatically for tomorrow We'll check in on that trade early in pre-market. See if it's still worth watching Keep it going got you go to you here a couple of big prints filled at the ask it looks like just before You know, it's kind of at the highs right now, but it looks a little sluggish to me. I'll pass Frza this thing has just been in play back to back days now It's been very choppy today mind you but you know from the morning session caught a good bounce on this early at first And then even just before tried to eat back up But then failed to flip 350 into support. In fact, I think it just kind of hit it Then came back down right first test of it again here false break just not didn't even stand a chance unfortunately Let me keep it going. We keep moving. See what else we got here though folks Each s AI I haven't seen this ticker before I just want to look it's not tradable But just has AI at the end there. So I didn't know if it was another AI company there All right, we'll hop over to the loser's side seeing if there's anything looking just as good if not better here So far we got a good list I mean, I'd say though a few just more volatile stocks that MVIS is probably the most tradable out of all that we have there so far We'll come back to a couple at the end there like big lots and QPTS Palantir even MVCR taking a huge hit. So for right now I mean hey for a stock at the highs you want to follow especially if it's up big or coming off good news For a stock that's coming off bad news or you know down big you want it at the lows of the day Which is exactly where what we have here So it'd be hard to pass up on this trade MVCR. It's just definitely more of a level four plus stock You know really thin liquidity out there on the order book looks like it broke under some historical support though recently today Right off at 54 roughly around 54 once it broke under here. There was no looking back That's an interesting move if anyone got a piece of that going into the late morning early afternoon kudos to you I just wasn't as focused on that or on the loser side at least at that point But again even goes to show that there is opportunities on both sides of the coin here folks Pun intended obviously We got coin base dropped off. I'm on my game this afternoon meeting So with that coin base surprisingly ended up making a really strong squeeze back up I mean not to the point where it made the bounce to start the bounce up is not surprising But it's the continued push and you know grind over that $50 price level So I wasn't too interested in looking for the short afterwards. I ended up getting stopped out on a couple of short trades or Puts at least I ended up getting stopped down on some puts that I bought and then from there Ended up grinding up higher. So yeah coin base now looks pretty flat I just feel like for a couple other crypto stocks, you might see them up big You know Mara up big today right up big Actually matters up a lot percentage wise right now up over 8 to 9 percent right now live testing 10 bucks The hell nice slip slip up here I guess it's just not up as much here Compared to what we have on the gainer's list right now, but really good call folks This is where I need your help if there's anything else looking good up down left right type it in the chat board Let me know right now AI making a grind to push up higher right now. So that's looking pretty good still PLTR going back to the side list that we already have just a little slow for my liking So I'm gonna pass on it for today putting it on the main special list QBTS same deal Big lots nice push going into the early afternoon, but same there. I feel like that's more exhausted now All right, so what do we have here inside our live trading room for office and social feel more than free to chime in as well here Tony Tony see inside our live trading room asking about the IVRX Beautiful Yeah, really good call Tony very nice call Nothing else really needed to be said there So Perfect liquidity cheap nice move up the highs up big I guess that that is what's left to say there, but didn't even need to say that if you're a student, right? That's a great call from Mike saying stitch fix earnings this afternoon like after the market closes So that's a good one to follow for the side list tomorrow morning if you trade the earnings specifically then it's good to keep in mind For the close today, but much like get lab, you know get lab exploded off good earnings It was such a good play today So I'd rather see the smoke and dust shake out first and then you know We'll kind of see if there's any good opportunity on stitch fix for tomorrow morning You know if they explode off earnings up 25% I'm not like as concerned about missing the earnings pop as I am missing like The support test tomorrow morning like just like get lab. It's literally the same exact type of play Just stitch fix much cheaper mind you but you know just for as much as get lab exploded yesterday afternoon It's like all right. Well, there's plenty of ball left to play there from this morning. So Hopefully that is the case to be said for stitch fix SFIX. I do like that trade Mike coming off earnings or any news It's it's been a fun stock All right, folks I think that we're gonna call it for right now for all of some social Hey, just be on the lookout on our YouTube channel be a friend tells tell a friend just go subscribe right to our YouTube channel So you could be up to date with any of our videos that we'll be posting across this week We have a couple of clips from our trader stock workshop that we just conducted this morning If you wanted the full addition you got to be a member you got to be a student inside our live trading room at least So go right down to the link on the green banner below just on the bottom there They stream to get yourself set up and started inside our live trading room next audio broadcast coming up in about 15 or so Minutes with my colleague rich going into the market close I'll be on a coaching call up until 3 30 folks So, you know just hey if there's anything that looks good for myself and my student George We'll look to call it out but otherwise from Michael Kathleen Tony John Later and then all of us otherwise of course Grant included in Lawrence. Hey, best of luck trading going into the market close folks Talk to you soon


Hey, it's Melissa at Mountain View Dodge. I'm going to show you this 2015 sport that we got in on trade This is a one-owner truck. It's got close to 30,000 kilometers on it. This truck is well taken care of It already has rock protection on the front. It's Durashield Ceramic blue, which is a truck that you never really see that often For a 2015 it's an excellent condition This truck actually has an aftermarket Magnaflow exhaust system on the back Which really gives this truck a nice Growl sound when you start it which really is nice for the sport trucks gives them a little bit more of a sporty feel This truck's pretty loaded up It has your navigation system heated seats heated steering wheel the whole works I'm just gonna start it up so you can actually hear it so you can definitely hear that exhaust system when it goes This truck is listed, right? We have it priced at 37,987, which is a great deal for a truck like this If you want to come in and see it give Melissa a call<PHONE_NUMBER>