Eismitte

Transcription

>> KENNEDY: Okay, thanks for coming. My name is Robert Kennedy. I'm a web search SRE. And I have the good fortune, a few years ago now to meet David Schwaderer through mutual friend. And it's been really exciting to get to know him and I'm still getting to know him. He's a very interesting guy. I'll tell you a little bit about him before I let him take over. He has a master's degree in applied math from CalTech and an MBA from USC. He's worked at IBM, EDS, Adaptec, Symantec and Silicon Valley Startups. He's authored six commercial software programs for variety of machine architectures in several different languages, dozens of articles and ten technical books. He regularly presents at Silicon Valley companies like Oracle, Suns, Symantec and Google as well as universities like Stanford, MIT, and Naval Postgraduate School. His October 2007 MIT Innovation Lecture was selected as the best in the conference. And his soon to be published 11th book follows more than 10 years of research and is titled Innovation Survival Concept, Courage, Chance and Change. This is his fourth Google Innovation Presentation. Please welcome, David Schwaderer. >> SCHWADERER: Thank you very much. It's indeed a pleasure and a privilege to come back. I always love good audiences. This is a good audience. That said, this is not a leisurely walk down innovation lane, fair warning. We got 81 slides and as Captain Kirk says on the bridge of the Enterprise, "We will do this." Are you ready? Strap it on, hang on. Take a look at the sky here. If you live a life where any of your friends live a life that avoided innovation, it greatly increases the chances that you're going to like this guy. On the other side of the coin, if you live a life full of innovation, way out there on the edge, chances are you greatly increase the probability, you're going to look exactly like the same guy. Okay. Innovation is a two-edged sword. What you find is that most people's perceptions of what it is are completely wrong. And we're going to be getting into some of that. And if you're surprised by some of this lecture material, you will enjoy it. And notice this poor guy maybe on the street for a variety of reasons, none of which are his fault. It's a wonderful article in Atlantic Magazine. You can search on Jobless Era and Transform America, Atlantic Magazine, boom, it will pop right up. It talks about the various things that have gotten wrong in the country like marching to Wall Street's quarterly earnings expectations, patent system break downs and things like that. So people can lose their innovation, so can companies. Look at late great Polaroid Corporation. Look at what has been going on in Kodak, the inventor of the digital camera. Look at what's happening right now over in Milpitas at Adaptec Corporation, once a billion dollar corporation. It's always the same story, companies can lose it. But if companies can lose it, guess what? So can regions. Here is the 2010 Silicon Valley Index that recently out a couple months ago. It says that the standing of the valley in innovation in the world as far our new technology is at-risk. We should not be complacent. Innovation, innovators and things like that appears 65 times in this particular report. So if regions can lose it, guess what? Countries can lose it as well. This is an article in the Wall Street Journal about India and innovation and how they have decided that they will observe patents all across the world except in drugs and no longer do the ones there that they feel are innovative to their specifications. So countries can lose it which affect regions, which affect companies, which affect guys like that in the beginning slide. Now, my name is David Schwaderer. I have studied innovation diligently for 12 years in six different contexts. This is my fourth presentation here. The previous three at Google are the underlined ones. There is one that I have not done; innovation in sports, evolution at the surfboard. Today's lecture is innovation in science. And by science, you know, there's a-z, avionics all the way to zoology. I primarily mean Earth science. You will meet the work of these five gentlemen in this presentation. The two on the left, died about a week after or just couple of days after that picture was taken on the ice shelf on Greenbelt in 19--Greenland in 1930. The other three were ardent supporters of the gentleman all the way on the left who is one of greatest living scientist at the time and actually one of the greatest ever. So this is dedicated to them. There is one other topic. So, in the movie, Dirty Harry, good old Clooneys will ask this, "You've got ask your self, do I feel lucky?" Well, okay. There's pictures of six people on the next slide and I will count to five when it shows up. If anybody can name all six in the count to five, the first person, I will give them this $100 bill. And for those of you who cannot see in the back, this is what it looks like, right? It's non-negotiable, right? I didn't break any federal laws, all right? Are we ready? So you've got to ask yourself, "Do you feel lucky?" Here we go. One, two, three, four, five, time is up. How about five, anybody up for five? Five, five, five, give me five, five, five or four, four, four, all right, all right. So I will make it really easy. I have a genuine wooden nickel here, to the first person that can name one of these people. Don't worry, time is up. You didn't do any worst than anybody else has done on this presentation. When it comes to money, the game is always rigged, okay? Here's who they are. Don't worry about it. It's not important because you're going to meet them. And you're going to meet them through the agenda. We have five case studies, wonderful case studies. These are representative of innovation in science. So, here they are. We'll have a conclusion and parting thought. Let's start. Discovery of the New World. We all know way back in Columbus' Day, everybody except Columbus thought the world was flat. You know, we know how did that happen, all right? It is thought that it was flat. So to get to--off from Spain, out to the Spice Islands, the Spanish and the Portuguese [INDISTINCT] would sail all the way around Africa, east. Look how far they had to go. And they wouldn't dare to step off the ship because if they stepped off the ship on Africa, they invariably died. And we now know, you know, malaria, dengue fever, hideous parasites--go to a web search on guinea worms, "Whoa, boy, that's a big one." Okay. So, they will go all the way out there. The reason why they did that, they thought the world was flat. Well, sailing east was great distance. Columbus comes along and says, "Hey, new innovation, [INDISTINCT] and I have been sharing some Starbucks. And guess what, the world is round. You don't have to go east, you can go west." He picks up his BlackBerry and he twits Isabel and Ferdinand the king and queen of Spain. And he says, "Hey, guess what, shorter western route, they invited men and they get me the 30-second elevator pitch and Google Maps. We have a wonderful Google Map here, gentlemen, in the audience right now, okay. Now look at it. I mean this business case speaks for itself. Imagine, you know, the internal rate of return, return on investment, you know, throwing some stochastic money [INDISTINCT], future value of the [INDISTINCT], you know, analysis in there. Just look at as you speak, it's easy, it's trivia. So Isabel and Ferdinand said, "You know, golly, we're not navigators like you." We understand that yellow line is shorter. Now, let's turn it over to some guys who take a look at it. They turn it over to the de Talavera Commission guys. Here we go, look guys, it turns out that everybody in the world knows the world is round. This "World is a flat thing" was made up by Washington Irving in 1831. It is complete bunk and no basis for whatsoever. It's complete trash. So, say we know that the world's round. And you know, by the way, that little yellow line, that's how long the yellow line is, you know, you don't count the dots. Now, we now know that the Columbus' estimation of the distance from Spain to Japan was off by a factor of 4.5. We know that the distance between Spain and China was off by 3.31, way off. So how is it that these guys knew what the real distance was, and the answer is there were aware of this guy, who 1728 years before, had calculated the radius of the Earth, the circumference of the Earth and, hence, the radius. And it was Eratosthenes, he was a Greek, he did in Egypt, beautiful, very simple trigonometry within 1% of the use, the right unit of measure for his calculations. So, they go back and they think about it, and they come back and report to the Queen. They say, "Look, the guy is bogus." It has no merit, whatsoever, it's completely bankrupt. Here's why, all right? It's going to take him three years to do this trip; it's not a short one, all right? The ocean out there, up to the west is infinite and more I can show you, you can get there, but if he gets there, you can't get back but there's no there, there because there's no land, ask Saint Augustine. Trust me, don't tamper with that one. Saint Augustine's on the way here. He's going to go through uninhabitable zones, and guess what? So many years after God created the Earth, it is highly unlikely that any in new lands of any value whatsoever will be discovered. But, king and queen that set back to do their, you know, their future analysis, present value and money and everything just like that, they say, "Expected value of this is close to breakeven but let's do it." They picked up the iPhone, boom, they say, "Anchors away, and thank you Toscanelli for that wonderful map." And that's the map basically, I also believe, that Columbus had. Is there something wrong with the projector here? Where is this? I don't recall seeing this spot here. No, it's probably not important. Oh, my goodness, look at this. Here we go. Well, it turns out that there was a problem. Unexpected development and, you know, test organization and legility, and you know, thinking on your feet and things like that. So, how did it work out for Columbus in the end? Here's how it worked, they're not my words; one of the greatest biographers [INDISTINCT]. He was a great, great navigator. He accidentally discovered the New World, looking for something else what he found nobody wanted. He spent the next half century trying to figure out how to get around the obstacle because they wanted the real thing. And, oh by the way, they named the New World after somebody that had nothing to do with it. It's Discovery. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Innovation 101. Case study number two of five, Continental Drift. Now that beautiful, beautiful, Google Map here, satellite view of the world. You look at the West Coast of Africa. It looks as though that East Coast of South America could just slide right up in there, beautiful. I noticed it in the fifth grade. I would stare at this giant map in my fifth grade class for hours thinking, "Ahh, isn't that weird?" Look at that. Well, I wasn't the first. Here is the first published version that maybe there was a giant continent that had broken apart and drifted apart, it was done in what, 1858. And look at all the people here, their beaten. And here's one of the gentlemen that you didn't know. He did it in 1596, right? This is right after the New World started--you know, maps of the New World and Africa and everything and started getting a little bit accurate. So these guys are right on. May I draw your attention to the lower right-hand corner, Frank Bursley Taylor. Frank Bursley Taylor, 1908, gives a presentation, and he talks about how there is this thing discovered in 1870 out of the middle of the Atlantic Ocean called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. And it looks as though Africa and South America are moving away from it in opposite and roughly parallel directions. Boy, I that's got some bite to it. So the problem with him is he wasn't a member of the club. He wasn't credentialed. He had absolutely no basis to be talking to geologists about these very profound things, so he was ignored and--but when he wasn't ignored, he was criticized. Here's a gentleman named Bailey Willis and his comment on it, he says, "Sorry, everything is permanent, you know, changes are only gradual, there's been no changes. Thank you, go away. Don't go angry, just leave." So, we'll meet Bailey later in the presentation. Well, here's a gentleman that did not speak, read, write English whatsoever, only German. Brilliant thinker named Alfred Lothar Wegener, and he came up with the idea as well. And instead of just continental shapes and drifting and things like that, he went in and he looked to the snails on the tips of both South Africa and South America. He looked at the earthworms. He looked at the glaciation marks. He looked at the wandering poles and looked at all those poles have been wandering around but he said, "You know, maybe it's not the poles. Maybe the poles have been constant and the continents have been wandering around." You know, things like that. In addition to that, he knew about Sabine Island, this island right off of Greenland. You go to Google Maps, type in Sabine Island, Greenland, boom, here it is, okay? It looked as though by every 30 years it was moving a quarter of a mile west from Europe, every 30 or 40 years. Now, it is moving but he was off by a factor of 200 to 800. It's moving about an inch and a half a year. By golly, it's moving. So what does he do? Well, in 1915 he publishes a book, it's titled--what is it, The Origins of the Continents and the Oceans, but it's only in German. Nobody reads it. He goes to World War I, got severely wounded, comes back, war is, right, puts out a second edition in 1920, German only, and nobody reads it. He puts out a third edition in 1922, translated into four other languages, one of them English, and boy that was the Exocet missile hitting the aluminum ship, I go to tell you. To respond to the suggestion, in the 1922 there was annual meeting of the Geological Society of America and he says, "Hey," somebody said, "Hey, if we're going to listen to this guy, we have to forget everything we've learned in the last 70 years." And that's why we're all coding today, ladies and gentlemen, in machine language. You know, none of these are similar stuff, right, none of these high-level language, you know, none of the scripting because we know how--we know--we understand how machines work, right? So, like, you know, these registers, you know, condition codes, you know, predicate, you know, branching conditions, you know, instruction failing in our daily lives now, right? Wrong. They didn't want to abandon their intellectual property base, so they said, "This guy's got to be wrong." Now, this is science and with science you can always know in advance that the discussions are going to proceed in a collegial, nominal, friendly basis of discourse and exchange. Well, 1923, this guy says, "Well, you know what, he's in a debate and the role of the society says, 'Well, we discovered all of this and anybody that values his reputation wouldn't be saying this stuff. And--but we thought of it already eventhough it's bankrupt and has no basis whatsoever, we already thought of it.' So--and by the way we beat him in the war.'" So there you have it. So this is what he said, Wegener. He said there was a big continent that broke apart, it says right out of his book, and it's kind of an ugly fit because the coasts don't want to go together. But he says, "You know, maybe it's not the coast, maybe it's the continental shelves." But he didn't' have the Google satellite data, all right? He didn't have, you know--he didn't have mean square feet or any of these other stuff, so he says, "Golly, I don't know." So these guys were called mobilists, okay? Now, he got a mixed reaction across the world, all right? Arthur Holmes in the UK, one of the greatest geologists that's ever lived, maybe [INDISTINCT]. He said, "Absolutely, is this--we got to look at this," all right? Alexander Du Toit, South Africa, boom, right on the money. Reginald Daly, Canadian at Harvard, he says, "Now, this looks pretty important to me. Warren Carrey, now in Australia. United States, absolutely not, right? They're saying this guy is shankapotumus. He's a, you know, meteorologist, the arm-chair geologist, you know. Is he--and I picked up this line just the other day, a radical rat bag flat-earther, that was out of Harry Warren's poem, interviewing [INDISTINCT]. So--but at least it preceded, you know, in a nominally civil manner, or not. There you go. Here are some of the comments here. Now, look at these guys, you know, John Hopkins University, Cambridge University, presidents of very important societies, on and on and on, and they are all piling on this poor German guy who is trying to actually get ready for the trip Greenland that will kill him, that he will actually die on. So let's move on here. Yale; Yale weighs in. This is a textbook 15 years after that American Association of Petroleum Geologists meeting where they threw him out and lock, stock and barrel. And he says, "No, I always never been in the interchange, you know, everything's kind of where it is" and so on. I actually got this out of the library and checked it out myself. I don't know about you, guys but, you know, they look like those East Coast types, you know, kind of tightly wound and all that other stuff. Wouldn't we all feel rejuvenated if we have that breathe of fresh air, West Coast flavor? Well, look, it's Bailey, he is back. Now, he is chairman of the Department of Geology at Stanford University. And he says, you know, "We're going take this theory and just dump it into the trash can. All it does is encumber the literature, befog the minds of students, this is as antiquated as pre-Curie physics. It is a fairytale. So this is 18 years after. They're still beating this guy up, eventhough, you know, the dead horses laying out there on one-on-one and, you know [INDISTINCT] overpass. So, and of course, you always want Uncle Walt to weigh in, and here he is. Columbia, he says, "No, no, no. No legs there, just forget it." So I don't know about you, I think we can sum this up right now. You know, we're all intelligent people. Let's make it so simple, a pentagon general could understand it. Are we ready? Here we go. Boom! Continents can rise and fall, good. Continents moving around laterally, bad; and what are we going to do to anybody that says that they move around laterally? We're going to lay the template of traditional geophysics down on all the reports and we are going to exterminate with scientific antibodies anybody that breathes mobilism. That's what we're going to do. Well, remember that thing out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? It was discovered in 1870 it's called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. And if you look at it closely, this is a shot of it from Google Maps again, all right? There's a big crack there. In World War II, there was a gentlemen by the name of Harry Hess and he was out in the Pacific Ocean--not the Atlantic, the Pacific Ocean. And had this new fangled device that was good for finding Japanese submarines. It was called Sonar. And he left it on all the time even when there weren't any submarines around and he was mapping the bottom of the ocean. And he discovered volcanoes down there. And he said "You know why this is really weird. Why are there volcanoes down there?" And he began to think that maybe there were cracks in the ocean floor and there was movement and lava coming up and he didn't name it. These gentlemen here named it, Robert Dietz, and he referred back to that greatest geologist perhaps has ever lived Arthur Holmes. And talks about a conveyor belt effect that there's a big crack and the Earth is moving away from the crack like a conveyor belt on both sides a.k.a. Frank Bursley Taylor. And maybe the lava's coming up in the inside. And the way it would work would be, you would have--right at that crack, you would have crystallized basalt. And as it pass through and cools--as it pass through the Curie point, this magnetic materials would lock on to the direction of the magnetic field. Its direction and inclination as it turns out. Well, as it spreads apart, cracks on both sides, you get something like that. And guess what? It turns out the Earths magnetic field reverses itself about every 10--15 million years. So sooner or later, you wind up with something like this. Well, three gentlemen working--the bottom two together and the top one independently who got absolutely shocked at because he tried to publish and he got thrown out by the journal that published the report of other two guys. He said "If this is all true, when we go out to that crack it ought to look like that." They went out and they looked at it, and it did look like that. And it talks about how this conveyor belt is actually a tape recorder of magnetic direction over time very symmetric, right? Wonderful, YouTube. Thank you again Google. Video were Fred Vine explaining this out on Youtube. How this all works? Absolutely beautiful. So, fast-forward a few years. 40 years after this conference, this gentleman here says "You know, we ought to go back and revisit this Continental Shelf Fit thing. The--you know, the shoreline didn't work, let's do it." So he and two other gentlemen get together and they do their Least Squares Fit and, you know, crunching and everything else like that, on computers that Wegener had no chance of having. Two years after they did that, this gentleman, Maurice Ewing, from Columbia University, an absolute power house in the discipline, comes up and says "You don't believe all this rubbish, do you?" Well, let me ask you. How does the fit look? It is spot on like a 4% error. It was absolutely devastating. Now, if you look at that picture up there in the upper left. There's Alfred Wegener and his guide, they both died, right? On a mercy mission that was unnecessary that they didn't want to do. So they were already dead by this time, 35 years after this thing here. So, like he never got to hear this. So how do you sort all of this out? Well, it moves directly into Plate Tectonic Theory. And it's still a theory. There's things--there are big holes in this theory, hypothesis by the way. And this is--but this is something that's very close. You see the blue bull's eye in the center? That's Haiti 7.0 earthquake, right? And that's the problem with building codes, right? The yellow one there of South America on the West Coast, that's Chile's 8.8. It was 68 times stronger, moved the entire town nine feet west. The green one is the one that's cocked and loaded on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, all right? They know to the hour when it last cut loose, it does so every 300 to 500 years. The hour it last cut loose was in a day in 1700 and the math is very easy. When that thing hits, it's going to impact Crescent City; Eureka; Eugene, Oregon; Portland, Oregon; Hillsboro, Oregon; Astoria; Vancouver, Washington; Tacoma, Washington; Seattle; and Victoria; and Vancouver, British Columbia. That's going to be the big one. That's going to be a hundred times stronger than what happened in Haiti. So notice that it's all happening basically out on the oceans or just off the coasts, right? So, how did it work out? Well, did the geologist now all get together and say "Mobilists, we're sorry. You know, we'll fix this. We were wrong. We love you." Absolutely not. The oppressors became the oppressed and the oppressed former pressed became the oppressors. And they laid on to these people, Why, I mean they just tore into them, right, and a reign of terror. And if you dared, try to publish anything that had not been tectonic washed, you know, like green datacenters and green washing and all that stuff. Tectonic wash you will run off, you will run out of--you will run out of the discipline. So the other side effect to that is just that the literature itself became very shallow and meaningless for about a decade. And there's a lot of problems in it now that have to be straightened out. So, for Alfred Lothar Wegener, right, turns out he was the real scientist, not the other guys that were criticizing him. They were upset about the about the fact that he had a single theory and was attempting to prove it. In United States they wanted multiple theories bouncing off of each other. Sometimes that works, it didn't work here. In addition to that, he also had some errors because he thought the continents plowed their way through the crust. When in fact, they were like corks being conveyed by these tectonic plates and things like that. [INDISTINCT] about a thousand. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, John Maynard Keynes "Better to be, you know, roughly right than precisely wrong." And then by the way, hell, a lot of bad things can happen for a long time and in the long run, we're all dead." Wegener was dead. Welcome to innovation. Case study number three, Thunderstone of Ensisheim. Does anybody--look at--this is really--I don't know what this thing is. This bugs that--this bugs me to death. Columbus is off of Hispaniola or Cuba sailing around and this thing comes barreling in, in about a noon one day. Big, big contour of curling flames and sonic boom and it just smashes and buries itself to the ground. Villagers dig it up. Emperor Maximilian's coming by. Takes a look at it and says "This is a good sign, a good omen for my battle is coming up. So I want you to chain it down on the church because we don't want anybody stealing it, we don't want it wandering around at night, and we don't want it living in a violent manner when it arrive, you know. By the way, stop chipping pieces off of it. And see how it lost about half its weight." So, you know, I--and this thing, I don't understand. This is, you know, kind of round and sonic boom. So I tell you what, if anybody here feels lucky. I got a $20 bill here, anybody that will tell me what is this thing? Does anybody know? Anybody have a--what this--what could this thing possibly be? Who's? Did you, meteor? You know what I like about a great audience ladies and gentlemen? Is there's always somebody that wants to see if I'm in on the gag. We all know there's no such thing as meteorites, right? They don't exist. And, but you know what? Since you're such a good guy and such a gentleman and willing to support. I'll tell you what. You didn't get the answer right. Because we're holding on the gag, right? And so I'm willing to give you $10. So how much is $10 with respect to $20? It's about--it's about half? There you go. Okay. You know what? Don't pressure me. Okay. So are we? So let's move on. We now know what it's not, right? We're all in on the gag. So here we go. The reason why I know it's a not a meteor is because I did the social map. Aristotle says "There's no such thing as meteors." Isaac Newton says "There's no such thing as meteors." Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of our country, says "There's no such thing as meteors." I mean meteorologist. You got to love it. When you tap into that hive mind of conventional wisdom, you know the Wikinomic long tail strategies of everything of thought collective consensus science. You get an answer really fast. It's easy and it's [INDISTINCT]. It's simply called Appeal to Authority, it's a winner. I mean look at it. These guys here, who's going to vote against these guys? Well. So we know what it's not. And here we go. Here are the candidates that I found that it can be. And these are the ones that will probably--I take a particular shine to that Lunar Volcano because, you know, you can see the moon up there and there's all these craters and stuff, right? And if there's no meteors, what causes craters? Volcanoes. Now, let me tell you. When Tom Hanks and I went to Starbucks and we talked about the--you know, the problems he had with his Apollo 13 aircraft. And I say "Hey, I think that's it Tom." He says "Yes, maybe you're on to something, Dave." You know, look into it. And of course, there's a perennial favor here. God is all powerful and He's up there throwing rocks at us, right? So, you know, you got to love it. So I don't get it. Hey, I mean like--I appreciate your effort but, you know, God. So there's this gentleman, Peter Simon Pallas and Catherine of Russia really likes this guy. He's extremely intelligent. He gives him a post in the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. In 1768, he decides he's going to go do a survey of all the wealth and riches of their--of Russia. So he goes out and four years later, villagers bring him that thing. That's another puzzlement for eternity I got to tell you. I don't know what that thing is. And he looks at it and he says "Oh, this is definitely new. Never seen anything like this before." About 21 years later, this gentleman is talking to one of the greatest thinkers and scientist in the world name Georg Lichtenberg. And Lichtenberg says "You know, these things that are barreling in, you know, sonic booms and sticking in the ground and stuff." And Pallas says "I think they come from outer space." He's not in on the gag. Well, Chladni says "I'll go look into this." And he goes out, he interviews eyewitnesses, as many as he can find, and in 1794 he publishes this long-winded book about these things, and he says, "Hey, these things come in from outer space." They said, "Really?" Well, it's very controversial and they ridicule him, and--I mean, can you imagine the guy actually went and interviewed peasants out of, you know--out the nowhere? I mean, these peasants probably don't have Facebook pages or LinkedIn profiles. I mean, who the--who are they? So, here-so he's giving a distant written off. Oh, it turns out 60 days later, the skies break loose in Siena, Italy and all the Italians are out there "sono confuse," my gosh. These things are rocketing in, you know, down to the ground, the Royal Society of England sends Edward homes out. They gather up a bunch of them, they look at them more carefully and find this formation inside this thing, and they called them chondrules. What are these things? They've never seen these before." And nine years later, the mother load happens, boom, in Normandy, France, Spain comes in, dumps 3,000 to 4,000 large stones over this village in this ellipsoidal area, and the French Academy of Sciences sends out Jean-Baptiste Biot. He says that "Pardonnez-moi, monsieur." But I looked at this stuff and guess what? Meteorites are cosmic. They come in from outer space and meteorites exist; so small matter of 311 years to get to the right answer on the thunderstone of Ensisheim. I mean, who could have known? I guess you can do better than that. So, now, these are all small stones, right? All small stones. The reason why there are always small stones is the atmosphere is impenetrable to large meteors. Large meteors can't get in, all right? And there's this big hole out there between Flagstaff and Kingston--excuse me, Winslow and Flagstaff , Arizona. So the USGS, United States Geological Survey, sends out Grove Karl Gilbert, 1891. He says, "What is that hole doing out there?" Well, he sees all of these meteor fragments, just happened to be coincidental around the rim and the surrounding area. But there's no magnetic anomalies down the bottom, so he says, "Oh, there's a volcano 90 miles away, and some lava." Probably went underground and hit some water and boom, it's a steam explosion. So that's where it's at. Enter Eugene Merle Shoemaker. And this gentleman was a Ph.D. student in Princeton, and his Ph.D. thesis adviser, Harry Hess, you know, the guy with the sonar, is telling him, "Eugene, it's time for you to leave, time for you to get out, write a Ph.D. thesis, you know, taillights and car exhaust. That's all we want." Well, he's not liking what he's working on. So he thinks, "Maybe this thing has been caused by a large meteor impact." And what he does is he goes out to Yucca Flats where they've been shooting off nuclear bombs underground, investigates the craters that are out there, he finds this new mineral called shocked quartz. He goes out to the crater, looks on the rim, guess what he finds, shocked quartz. Everybody says, "Okay, Gene. You got us on that one. That's your gimmie, but it doesn't ever happen anyplace else." And he says, "You know, I'm not so sure." So, he's on his way to a conference in that center picture there, another great, great satellite picture from Google Maps, great satellite picture there, there's this depression in Germany with this little town in the bottom of it, it's 15 miles in diameter, and it's called Nordlingen. And there's a rim on it. He says, "I bet you that's one, too." So he shows up at night, camps on the rim, he gets samples of rock from the rim, he takes it downtown the next morning to the post office and mails them to look at them back at--when he gets back to Princeton. And his wife says, "Oh, honey, we're here in this really nice walled city," there's only three of them in the world, "let's play tourist." He goes, "Uh, okay." And so they're walking around, you can actually see this church in Google satellite view, rolling it, right in the dead center of the town. He walks up to the stone church made out of rock quarried in the local area, takes one look at it, pulls out his magnifying glass, lo and behold, it is full of shocked quartz. So he's got it. So now they know, okay, there's a whole bunch of them. Now, if you're like me after you watched Jurassic Park, you know, you kind of, like, wanted to have one of those velociraptors in your backyard to take care of the pesky neighbors, pets, and things like that. Well, it turns out that 65 million years ago, something like this happened. And that's why we don't have one, right? Now, everybody seems to think it happened in Yucatan and they--and there's been some consensus here in the last couple of weeks that it happened in Yucatan. Don't be so sure. There are people that are pretty intelligent to think it actually might have happened over in the decant steps of decant traps of India. There's a giant volcanic area in there that's just--that did all sorts of bad things to the surface of the Earth. And oh by the way, did you know that there was a major asteroid impact in Eastern Oregon as well, so none of these things are settled. And of course, if asteroids and meteors can hit, comets can too and Shoemaker was in on the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet in 1994 that impacted Jupiter. If that had hit--if that had hit the Earth, we wouldn't be having this meeting. I guarantee you. And there is a--what is believed to be an impact chain from a series of comets on one of Jupiter's moons over there. Now, the reason why this is important is that there's a black layer, particularly in North America of a very carboniferous material and it is laced with Nanodiamonds. People believe that it's about 2,900 years ago or 3,000 years ago. A comet came it, and maybe that is the reason why all of the mammoths and everything like that got nuked as well as the Clovis people and a bunch of other stuff. They don't know it's still ongoing, so a large amount of that impacts. Case study number four. Now this one, I'm really sure about. I can tell you with full certitude and no mental reservation whatsoever, there is no Oil in Texas. And the reason why I know that is because of this kind gentleman here. And back in 1885, he was notified about the fact that there might be oil in Oklahoma. And that was his statement. And let me tell you, when you get a statement that is this delicious, you better document it. And so I got three places where I've seen this quote. I had so many pounded on me. This can't be true. It's too good. So, how did this all work out? Well, it turns out that he was afraid. He was an executive in standard oil. And he was under the impression that they were running out of oil and none would be found. So he made the statement and shortly after, he sold a whole bunch of the stock at a discount like all good Wall Street people you'd want them to do with inside of information. Now, there's always 10% of the people that don't get the word. I mean you guys working a large organization, right? There's probably a whole building over there. And people would think "There's oil in Texas." I don't know. All right. This guy was in his day. He didn't--he thought there was possibly oil in Texas. And he'd going out to this area called Sour Spring Mound, also known as Big Hill outside of Beaumont, Texas. It's this bump 46 feet above sea-level. It's about a mile in diameter. And you stick a stick in the ground and it would bubble. And the water, and he could light it in, it would burn. He says if there's gas there, there's oil there. So he wants to do a Series A IPO on his theory and, you know, take it to the street. So he calls up, you know, Lehman Brothers and they say, "You know, we're funding important things." So he says, "I need some credibility." So he calls up the State Geologist, William Kennedy comes out to Texas, walks around with him, shows him the gas, shows him this, shows him that. Kennedy says, "You're wasting your time and money," and he add insult and end to injury. He writes an article in the local newspaper saying, "This guy is bogus. Do not touch this investment. He does not know what he's doing." Well, it didn't work out too well. So he goes again. C. Willard Hayes and Parker of USGS come out. He says, "Listen to your state geologist, dude. Like nothing's here. That doesn't work." So he brings--he gets Standard Oil and brings this guy out who's one of the top Standard Oil petroleum geologist in the corporation and he says, "You're not going to find anything here." Now, how many strikes is that? Is that one, two, three? No, it's four. Because six years he had already written the executives in Standard Oil in Cleveland and he had the--say, hey, gotten this response back from Frank Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller's brother. And what--they said was, "No we don't want invest in your stuff and, oh by the way, it's too much guess work." Noticed that they saved a nickel by crossing out the name of a former treasurer and using the different type there, you know, the state stationery, and add insult to injury, they misspelled his name. There's two T's in his name. So, that's four strikes. Well, you know, I'm sure that they're glad they did this because if there was one to ten percent of the oil that Pattila Hagan said the there was in this area, what if they drilled out a thousand feet, it would have been squirting in the air, and it's just utterly preposterous because it's just Texas prairie land. Well, that's embarrassing. Maybe I need to prepare better for these talks. My goodness, okay. Oh, okay, all right. So, all right. So maybe they drilled down a few feet and some salt water pumped up, I mean, like I can assure you that that this is not what seems to be here and the reason for that is, is that, well, if there was really oil there, I mean, that much pressure, they could drilled it like pin cushion and how many oil was [INDISTINCT] see there? It's ridiculous right? No, that's just wrong. Okay, so there were few derricks out there, wooden derricks out there, and--but this probably is just some fake digital image that, you know, Kodak, George Eastman, put together in 1895 because, you know, they going to invent the digital, I mean, the digital camera, you know, ninety years later. So the reason why we can be assured that this, you know, couldn't possibly have happened is that if it was really under that much pressure in this many oil wells, they would have lost control of them and there would have been, like, lakes of them out there, lakes out there where oil--millions of barrels of oil. Well, okay, you know, this--you know, as Obi Wan Kenobi says, "These aren't the [INDISTINCT] we're looking for, let's move on because this is probably some catfish pond somewhere like in lower Alabama or maybe it's a surge settling pond in Alviso. That's it, you know, that's Alviso, it's over there. So--because, look if, trust me on this, you can take this to the bay, it's from the heart, if there was that much oil exposed under that much pressure, can you imagine ones spark, right, one careless match of cigarette, why, everything would have been burning. So the Bible line is this, in that hole, we found 150 million barrels of oil, that's what they found. So what was all the bad acting about that I was doing here for four slides? It's to drive home an experience called the Semmelweis Reflex. It is the automatic rejection of the obvious without thought, inspection or experiment. With innovation, this is a regular occurrence, regular occurrence there. There are a lot of reasons for it. Here's one of them; moral cowardice. If you're going to be an innovator, you better have some courage and you better get ready for a scuffle. So, if you thought that was a big oil find, how about 135 times bigger, okay? This is the Black Giant, 30 thousand--over 30 thousand oil wells in these areas, how we won World War II drove the price of oil down to six cents a barrel, right? And, like, then time-honored tongue. I'll drink every barrel will you get out of that hole, right? Now the last time I looked, California--California is west of Mississippi, right? Well, top two pictures there, it's Huntington Beach, late 1920s, that's what it looked like. It's a little bit different from surfing the U.S.A. today. Down here this is the greatest gusher that has ever occurred in the mainland United States, this is about 35 miles west of Grapevine on the Interstate 5, right. It shot two hundred feet on the air, 20 feet in diameter, the wind blew the oil for 10 miles and farmer and the ranchers were terrified that this thing was going to explode and incinerate all of their sheep and cattle that were out there. And it almost did. One, well actually did created a 60 acre length. They was going a hundred thousand barrels a day in its maximum, they couldn't shut it off for 18 months. It was just--I mean it was beyond conception of this one thing here, drove oil at the time down at 30 cents a barrel. So here's a question. Standard oil, you know they weren't in on any of this in the beginning so you have to ask, organizationally, was standard oil stupid? And the answer is no. They were not stupid, right. They were handicapped by knowing too much about too little. And this is a condition that we all suffer from and it's important to realize that we all do this right. Electricity was on its way, as a result the market for Kerosene illumination was diminishing. Oil is everywhere. It's probably right under this building. But its not there in enough commercial quantities and the primary market for oil back then was production of Kerosene. You need a paraffin to do it. Texas did not have the right quality of oil. There were no geological signatures like in the North East United States or any place that anybody had ever seen. There were no refineries, no rail heads, no nothing. If they did find a bunch of oil how to get it out of there, right. There is no awareness of the role that Saltdome's could play. This oil was used for fuel oil. And it blindsided everybody because the internal combustion engine didn't even exist at the time. Gasoline was an obnoxious byproduct of the production of Kerosene. They deport it in the ditches, burn it, or they export it in the links in streams. So if you're a human, that we all are, what one's see if the supplies to something that you're invested in. And if you're Arthur. Case study number five, honeybees are moving away now from geophysics. Now, this gentleman here won a Nobel Prize in what 1973 for his--his studying of honeybees and their interactions on how they communicate and find honey, nectar. So, in 1937 he was fully signed up for one hypothesis where they smelled it and then they zoomed in on the wind plums and things like that. 1946, he changed over to the other prevailing one called the Language Hypothesis, you know as the waggle and the wiggle and, you know, sun inclination and, you know, magnetic field and, you know, storms and air and pressure and all that stuff. So here's a history of these two timelines. We have the odor search and he shows up in 1937 in the green, and he moves over in 1946. Well 1962, 16 years later, there's another gentleman you'll see in the next slide. He signs up. He's on the wagon. He adds sounds. This is they can communicate with, you know, intensity of flapping and all this other stuff. And--but he moves over in 1967 five years later. Now what happened? Ladies and gentlemen, meet Adrian Wenner, Professor Emeritus at University of California Santa Barbara. What happened was, was he initially supported what this guy did and the thought collective. He supported it. And he went out and ran a bunch of experiments. And none of it added up. None of it added up. And he says, "This is bogus, this is broken, this is bankrupt, it doesn't work." And he tried to publish a paper that said that. And he was completely thrown out of this--of the discipline. He was not permitted to ever publish anything. He was not even permitted to respond in writing to anybody that criticized his work or his responses whatsoever, he was on the street. And he wrote a book about it titled "Anatomy of Controversy." You'll see it in just a few minutes as we move along. And it says it didn't have anything to do with evidence. It has to do with the sociology of the club. Well, he finally does get a paper out in the journal of insect behavior Volume 15 number six November of 2002, but only because a previous student of his who was--who gave $150,000 to establish a chair who's life Adrian Wenner had changed was co-editor of it. It took him two years to get it in versus a couple of months. They pushed back. They did everything they could to stop it. He fought back and he finally got it published. I got to tell you. I talked with this gentleman several times. I wouldn't beat against him. But, you know, in the long run we're all dead, these guys can wait people out a long, long time. So here's a thought from Carl Cagan, here. That suppressing unpopular thoughts has no place in science. But guess what, guess what? It happens all the time. This is the gentleman that is responsible for the Arecibo radio observatory in Puerto Rico, ah here. He didn't bet a thousand. He thought the astronauts were going to land on the moon and sink out of sight and forever into moon dust. Didn't happen. Couple of other things he didn't do. He is an absolute science heretic and absolutely a brilliant man. He says it happens, you know, the suppression of conflicting information happens all of the time. And here is Mr. Du Toit. This is the introduction to his book that he put out that was roundly ridiculed and mocked, turns out that he is probably the greatest living field geologist in all of history here. And he was basically dead right. So you could be driven out of town, right, even though you're dead right. You may think that I have cherry picked examples. Actually, the experiences are present in virtually every instance in every scientific discipline. Here's just a few. And there's a book that called The Politics of Excellent, and it actually publishes the letters that were exchanged by the people who were picking who's going to get Nobel Prizes, right? Not all of these gentlemen are correct; Immanuel Velikovsky Affair, right, the guy was dead wrong, but, boy, they rode him out of town, and that was the worst beating that's probably ever occurred. Another really good one is the Washington's Channeled Scablands, I have that fully developed, but we can't get to it today. Okay. So now, we're winding down the homestretch here. Resistance to change is probably a biological reaction to novelty, right. It occurs in everybody with different intensities. You need to make sure that if you're going to innovate that is welcome. If it is unwelcome, if novelty and no news is treated as bad news, right, don't even bother talking about it, irregardless of who you are, right. Innovation is very disruptive. It is an insult to the status quo. And people are pretty happy generally without status quo, unlike Wall Street that privatized game and socialized laws, right. Unwanted innovation socializes the gain and privatizes risk. You will look like that person that's unemployed, I guarantee it. You'll look like it, okay, because it gets the managerial antibodies up and going because we have this temperance. We lay over every situation and magnificent its spotting deviation from the templar. We are, you know, were template deviation machines? Innovation typically involves a four-letter word. You know, I value my invitations to come to Google and talk, so I'm not going to say that four-letter word and I'm not going to spell that four-letter word. I'm going to let Tom do it. That's it. So if you want to go after a competitor, what you do is you go in and you look at the industry that you're going to compete in and you find out five or six different ways to compete that are different from what your competitor is doing. And when you do that, it is so unpleasant, it is so inauthentic that you will likely be ignored for the runaway that you need to get up to speed and overrun them. It takes a lot of work. Okay. Last conclusion, do not be Panglossian, you know, Panglossian Candide, you know, best of all possible world, just try to be realistic about how it's going to go. Brace yourself because you can be absolutely blindsided by the reactions to innovation. I mean, in a lot of people, there's no there-there for them to put it so it just can't get anyway, all right. Thought-collectives, do web search on the term thought-collective and Ludwik Fleck, beautiful concept. It's like groove thing but it's much more powerful. You're going to have to hang in there and you're going to have to get cheap shot at and you want to save the easy downhill competitive path for your customers, right, they'll do it. A great book entitled Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage, lists the defender's hubris, but there are seven of it, it's beautiful. Try to listen to everybody to the point where you got to shift. There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. With ignorance, you can go in, you can pop, and you can go in and re-flushed and you can give a new load module, and boom, everything is off and running. Stupidity, there's nothing you can do about it. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you and is arguing with you and doesn't get it, please, just like standard oil, they're not necessarily stupid, they're just unaware and they are living within their cognitive biased envelope. Nobody bats a thousand or is omniscient or infallible, you'll see that, everything. I mean, like, you guys do a lot of projects and you put them out there and, you know, they go out there and they say, "Well, you know what? It didn't work." So let's salvage what we can and let's pull a string on it, that's what you have to do. Wonderful quote by Harold B. Hopfenberg, he says, "Science and companies and social activities usually are just the best things that people can do at the time with what they have," right. There--things change. So you need to move with the changes as well. Great article that he wrote, "By worse or loss and it's by hanging on to the past is too long." Richard Feynman, I'll have a lunch with him somebody, incredible guy. Expanding the frontier-- science is an expanding frontier if ignorance. And--so Feynman is saying--this Nobel Prize winner, I got to tell you this guy was electric, absolutely electric, you know, I just say. So this is my take on it. Omniscient infallibility that's in short supply, haven't found any yet, haven't found anybody. Welcome to the human condition, all right. So innovation is successive realization. There's lots of surprises. You'd probably well-served by not considering a surprise and labeling it with the word failure. Here's a parting thought. Now, we're all in a big scientific struggle right now on Anthropogenic Global Warning, AGW, right. I have to tell you, I wrote the corporate white paper for Symantec Corporation on the green data center. I actually used some of your guys' research, right. And believe me, I'm all for a renewable energy and, you know, green data centers and energy conservation, everything else like that. I have to tell you, the science and the stuff is not done. It is not over. There's going to be a lot of surprises in this stuff there. I--I'm either an advocate or a detractor to the proposition of AGW. I honestly don't know. The problem is just that we don't understand exactly how the sun works. I just admitted that about three weeks ago. And, you know, the good old thermohaline current seem to be doing just fine right now, you know, surprise, surprise. And there's these wild cards of India and our good amigos over in Beijing. We don't know what they're going do, and I haven't seen many instances that they got A+ on playground behavior, so it's going to be a real problem, even Al Gore says scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. I will follow out anywhere but only out of curiosity. The other thing is Wall Street has placed best here, right. We're from Wall Street and we're here to help, right. And here we have Dick Fuld and Mr. Repo 105 who didn't know a thing about it, right, yeah, right. And then there's Bernie Boyle who's cooking over in Tennessee or some place like that, right. I--there's a lot of things that we don't know that are going on in a lot of forces that we play. Here's a thought; idealism is great but its approaches to reality, the cost becomes prohibited. And the guys over in East Anglia, I think, been pretty thin skinned. The good news on East Anglia is that we're all finally going to get the data that everybody has been asking for, for about five years. So maybe something, you know, can come out of this. But this is Georg Lichtenberg, the guy that sent Chladni on his meteorite investigation. So here are some books you may want to read; Calculus Wars, Leibniz versus Newton; Longitude, how industry tried to rip off the guy that solved the problem of Edington--excuse me, how Edington shafted Chandrasekhar on black hole, of course, there's the standard, you know, on structure of scientific revolutions. This book here is a very easy to read. It was written 60 years ago. It is virtually forgotten. It is magnificent on unbiased critical thinking. It's one of the greatest books I've read. Bretz's Flood, Washington Scabland's controversy; Bright-Sided, a book on the hazards of being panglossion and hopelessly optimistic, and of course, Dr. Adrian M. Wenner's Anatomy of a Controversy from Cornell. So this is what it takes for me to put together a presentation like this. This is just part of my bibliography here. And it takes enormous effort because when you get involved in the middle of these things, you find out that what is documented in a lot of places is incorrect. And I try to go back to the original sources. Some of these books go back into the 1800s and unlike in my battleship, evolution, the talk that I gave you, I actually did use Google Books, encyclopedias that were published in 1885 at the University of Michigan. So it's a lot of work. I'd like to thank everybody for being so patient and for the gentlemen for trying to put my leg on the meteorites scam there. It's been a privilege and a pleasure. Thank you very much. I'm here for questions.