promo alfamart

coming up on market tomarket -- the federal government releases a fishinto the food system and catches a mixed reaction. and we'll roam the plainson a farmer's quest to revive an iconof the old west. those stories and marketanalysis with elaine kub and walt hackney, next! funding for market tomarket is provided by grinnell mutual.

you think differentlyabout a customer when you stand in the middleof his dreams. we work to make sureyou get covered right. grinnell mutual --a policy of working together. information on findingan agent near you is available atgrinnellmutual.com. this is the friday,november 20 edition of market to market - theweekly journal of rural

america. hello, i'm mike pearson. the price of food,gasoline and shelter all rose last month -- a signconsumer inflation may be rising. according to the labordepartment, the consumer price index rose 0.2percent in october. core cpi, where factorscausing the most volatility are strippedout, increased at the same

rate. new housing startsstruggled last month, declining 2.4 percent. oil traded below the $40threshold early in the week for the first timesince august, with the energy commodity finishingbarely above the line on friday. and just in time forthanksgiving travel, some drivers can fill up forless than $2-a-gallon.

however, aaa says theaverage price for that gallon is $2.11.-- one ofthe discussions during the thanksgiving holidaywill likely include the terrorist attacksin france. the world economy remainedambivalent to last weekend'sassault in paris. and syrians seeking refugefollowing atrocities in their homeland sparkedmixed reaction. in the u.s., more than 30states said "no thank you"

to the immigrants. and for some countries thedrain on basic resources like food was toomuch for them to bear. while the effect ofnew arrivals are on the forefront, a shift in howcertain foods are created and distributed tookplace this week. the science of alteringthe genetic make-up of plants is an old one, butgiving the green-light to the marketing ofgenetically modified

animals is a new one. the fda made historythis week, approving genetically modifiedsalmon for human consumption. the food and drugadministration's move clears the way for theaquadvantage salmon, a fast-growing fishthat will be raised in land-based farmsand put onto u.s. grocery store shelves.

the ceo of themassachusetts-based aquabounty says this is agame changer because the salmon grow twice as fastas traditional animals and is done so inenvironmentally responsible manner. the g-m fish will notneed to be labeled as engineered becausethere are no material differences between theaquadvantage strain and naturally raised salmon.

once the product reachessupermarkets, consumers may not realize they areconsuming a fish from the new line as the flavor,texture, color and odor are the same. critics are callingthe modified salmon a "frankenfish." and some members ofcongress are pushing back against the approval,citing health, labeling and economic factors.

in the days before plowsbroke the plains, the prairies were populatedwith different animals that helped sustainnative american life. stories are still toldabout the open prairie being made black withenormous herds of bison. by the late 1800s,commercial hunting decimated thebovine species. naturalists brought theherd back from the edge of extinction.

and over the pastfew decades, several entrepreneurs have beenworking to increase the herd size androundup some profit. producer joshbuettner explains. it's been said thatgood fences make good neighbors. but for one nebraskan,these fortifications are a gateway - to his vision ofrestoring magnificence to the great plains.

daveklingelhoefer/watertown bison ranch - amherst,nebraska: "the bulls - especially the bulls. they're so majestic. they just...the way theywalk, you know they're the boss...and they're justkind of the king of the prairie like the lion isthe king of the jungle." watertown bison ranch inamherst, nebraska is where dave klingelhoefer and hisfamily house 150 head of

bovine behemoths - whichcan stand six feet tall and weigh up to a ton. bison ranch - amherst,nebraska: "we were going to buy two calves, one foreach grandson, and we came home with 11. so i guess we gotinto it that way." klingelhoefer grew up with11 siblings on a farm just 5 miles away, raisinghogs, cattle and farming row crops mostof his life.

and his own corn andsoybean operation has afforded the opportunityto sow a few hundred acres with seeds from the past. bison ranch - amherst,nebraska: "yeah, ever since i was a little kidi've been fascinated with the wild west and fourthgrade american history we did a lot of stuff withbison and indians and always liked that." estimated at a herd sizeof 30-60 million in north

america in the year 1600,bison, bizon or buffalo as they're known somewhatinterchangeably, were hunted to near extinctionover a century ago. according to figuresfrom the national bison association, by 1900the american buffalo population had dwindledto less than 1,000 head. but conservation haveresulted in a rebound of sorts. industry trade groupsclaim 20,000 bison now

roam publiclands in the u.s. and canada. and while far short of astampede, comparatively, usda's 2012 census ofagriculture adds over 160,000 bison - valued atnearly $95 million - on more than 2,500 privatefarms and ranches on domestic soil. government numbersindicate less than 100 private buffalo herdsexist in the cornhusker

state. but the modest resurgencehas served up niche markets for watertownbison ranch - starting in nearby kearney. yousefghamedi/cunningham's journal pub and eatery -kearney, nebraska: "you know he kind of approachedus and said, hey listen, we have this bison. we'd like to see how itwould work on your menu.

so we have introduced itas a special item and it has gone overextremely well. so it kind ofsells itself. people come inspecifically for it and we've done verywell with it. it's local. that excites people. and it's different." while exotic steaksand burgers spur sales,

proponents also toutnutrition, citing the meat's leanness and omega3 fatty acid content, which they sayrivals that of fish. spencer loescher/headchef, tru cafe - kearney, nebraska: "bison isa beautiful protein. bison itself, as we know,is a lower fat ratio than beef. it has a higher ironcontent and it is very delicate, no gameyflavor to it."

klingelhoefer attributespotential health benefits of bison consumption tohis animals' simple grass diet, which excludesgrowth hormones and antibiotics. bison ranch - amherst,nebraska: "the difference in a pound of beef and apound of bison is, when you're done frying ityou still have a pound of bison where the beefyou dump half a cup or whatever you dumpout as grease.

it's expensive up frontbut you actually get what you pay for." minimal supplements keepinput costs down, but the buffalo man saystime is a top hurdle. it takes 3 years to getbison to market, but similar ruminants, likecattle, are ready in less than half the time. bison ranch - amherst,nebraska: "it's a pretty slow process and kind offrustrating a little bit

because there's nomoney coming in. with the beef cattle youcan sell all your calves at one time and get abig check - whereas these things it's more of sellone or two at a time." premiums, typically athird or more higher than beef, are the payoff. consistent prices helplure customers willing to pay 12 to $16 perpound for bison cuts. however, the bison farmanticipates the extended

shelf life of jerky willhelp provide the backbone they seek fortheir business. upping their ability toprovide a larger volume of merchandise has ledto an arrangement with tennessee-based tractorsupply company that provides cured product tocoastal and southern test markets. charlie emswiler/owner- wahoo locker, wahoo, nebraska: "we have neverpacked one ounce sticks of

jerky before. but it's working well. it was a challenge andit's a learning experience a little bitbut it's fun." when it came time to finda processor, wahoo locker was a no-brainer. a small, well known packera couple of hours away, wahoo locker drawsclientele from nebraska and surrounding states.

with a reputation forhigh quality meats among mainstream and nicheproducers, owner charlie emswiler says variety -from the barnyard to wild game - sets wahoolocker apart from larger businesses which handleonly one type of animal. nebraska: "the processis similar to beef. the meat is leaner. therefore it's going to bea lot leaner product and higher in protein and veryhealthy...healthy snack

compared to beef. beef you can only get solean and bison resembles deer in a sense of theleanness so it makes very good jerky." in the hunt for ancillarymarkets, the rancher from big red country aimsto borrow from native american ways - byutilizing all parts of each beast. old west entrepreneursused buffalo hide to make

leather, bones were groundfor fertilizer, and manure was burned asa fuel source. in the absence of wood orcoal, natives and later settlers used buffalochips, or "plains oak" to keep warm andcook meals over. and with abundant supply,klingelhoefer draws modern parallels tooutdoor enthusiasts. bison ranch - amherst,nebraska: "it burns clean and hot and givesoff a nice smell."

as opportunities arise,and barriers break down, watertown bison ranch willcontinue its multi-pronged approach to themarketplace. and while working toincrease the size of his herd, klingelhoefer hopesthis icon of america's past propels hisbusiness into the future. bison ranch - amherst,nebraska: "i think as long as we can have a qualityproduct, people get used to the prices, used to thequality...i think they'll

stay with us. that's going to be our jobis to make sure people are happy. if they're happy,they'll buy it." for market to market,i'm josh buettner. next, the marketto market report. export sales, liquidationof short positions and anticipation overelections in south america made for mixedgrain markets.

for the week, decemberwheat lost 7 cents and the nearby corn contractgained a nickel. anticipation over theargentine elections kept the soybean market flatwith the january bean contract gaining 2 cents. december meal bucked thetrend falling $5.80 per ton. in the softs, decembercotton lost $1.64 per hundred weight.

over in the dairy parlor,december class iii milk futures lost 27 cents. the livestock sectorcontinues to be volatile this week. december cattlelost just under $1. january feedersdropped 90 cents. the december lean hogcontract gained $2.65. in the currencymarkets, the u.s. dollar index increasedmore than half a percent.

december crude struggledto stay above $40, losing 35 cents per barrel. comex gold declined$4.50 per ounce. and the goldman sachscommodity index gained 3.5 points to settleat 337.10. pearson: here now to lendus their insight on these and other trends are twoof our regular market analysts, elaine kuband walt hackney. elaine and walt,welcome back.

kub: always a pleasure. pearson: we'reexcited to have you. we want to jump into thiswheat market, elaine. it has been a tough marketto watch, down 7 cents on the week. u.s. dollar is stronger. are we going to get anypositive news in this market?

kub: it's hard to saylonger term what sort of weather, when we talkabout the strongest el nino that has beenrecorded maybe ever so that's the kind of thingthat internationally could come up with some sortof a weather surprise. but as far as domesticwheat markets, that most recent november reportshowed our export situation, the projectionsare the lowest since 1972. so no, there's not alot of optimism for u.s.

wheat right now. pearson: what have youheard on winter wheat planting progress? how is the croplooking so far? big storms rolling acrossthe plains this week. anybody getting nervous? kub: no, i think that thegeneral conditions for winter wheat are good. we don't want to haveflooding, we don't want to

have excess moisture, youwant to just have the crop be able to make itthrough the winter. so, so far, so good there. pearson: advice forproducers with the wheat in the field? kub: as far as marketinggoes, sit tight. there have been someinteresting things, if you've got wheat in thebin, you've got soft wheat in particular, thatmarket is a little bit

interesting. in the protein scenariothere is actually sort of a shortage or anexcitement for the milling quality low protein wheat,so there is actually a premium for the chicagocontract over kansas city right now, which is aboutthe only interesting thing that we can say for amarket that otherwise is just dragging alonghere in the doldrums. pearson: let's jumpinto the corn market.

positive week, up anickel, elaine kub. does this bode well fora thanksgiving rally"? kub: not necessarily, no. i think maybe the futuresare starting to pay attention to the factor the overall market structure is payingattention to the farmers' non-willingness to sell. we've definitelyseen it in the basis. the nationwide basis onaverage is 20 under, which

is very strong forthis time of year. and individual bids, outon the eastern corn belt there's 25 overbids atprocessors, there are some very strong basis numbersbecause the farmers just don't want to be sellingat this price level. pearson: so as we workinto december, how high can these futures run? how high will they need torun to pull that corn out of the farmers' hands?

kub: well, i'll tell youpersonally going through december i'm more worriedabout how low can they keep falling if the dollarcontinues to be strong. i'm not expecting to seeany major market rally through the endof the year. but once you get past thatand once you get past the usual crush of earlyjanuary selling i think that the market could getanother 40, 50 cents, sort of a rally.

but long-term this is justsort of the price i think, that there's no shortageobviously of supply, there is probably no change inmajor demand patterns at this point so i thinkwe're going to be fairly range bound. pearson: now you mentionedyour bigger concern was how low this can go. how low do youthink it can go? kub: i guess my point isi just don't think that

we've seen a bottombecause we have the potential strength in thedollar, the potential for a rise in interest ratesthat could strengthen the dollar further. those are the kinds ofthings, fund rebalancing here at the end of theyear, things like that, that could still put somedownward pressure on these grain prices. pearson: now we've talkeda lot about the dollar,

big effect in wheat, bigeffect in corn, big effect in hogs. where do you see thedollar going in the short-term? let's talk aboutthrough december as we contemplate, again, theidea of a federal reserve interest rate hike. kub: i think that theinterest rate hike has been priced in so we'vereached this level, it's a

unitless level but 1.00. it made that sort ofpsychological jump this week, which isinteresting. but i think that that hastherefore priced in this interest rate rise. the only surprise will beif they don't raise the interest rates. and in that case, thatwould be bullish to grains if the dollar then fell.

i don't know that that'sgoing to happen but that's the thing to belooking out for. pearson: is there --should the fed raise rates, then we're going tostart pressing for another rate increase one wouldassume, is this a cycle that is going to continueto build face headwinds for producers all year? kub: it could and we haveto look so far back in history, at least in ourcareers -- pearson: early

2000s. kub: or the '80s wheninterest rate changes happened every monthor every few months. but it has been so longsince the interest rate or the fed has been changinginterest rates from one month to the next thatit's really hard to know how the commodity marketswill react to that kind of activity. pearson: with that riskout there, potentially, do

producers need to be doinganything with their '16 crop today, on thecorn side especially? kub: i think that theyshould be looking long and hard at selling the '16crop at the same time that they sell the '15 crop orstart selling some of it. i don't want to be tooaggressive because we don't know what theweather situation will be. we've started to get alittle bit dry here this fall and if we had ala nina, which is a

possibility to developlater on, we could have a drought year. we don't know. so i wouldn't be realaggressive with '16 sales yet but once we see a 40or 50 cent rally in the spring, which is possibleand seasonally expected, i would normally besuggesting to make seasonal sales. pearson: okay.

now i want to go to ourgood friends over at twitter. these folks have tweetedto us @markettomarket. we encourage all ofyou to do the same. and this question camefrom jerod in oklahoma. since we're talking feedgrains, and we have two of the world's greatest feedgrain experts on hand, jerod in oklahoma, jerodmcdaniel is curious, will sorghum, milo, exportnumbers match or beat the

usda estimate? and if so, willbasis improve? elaine, i wantthis to go to you. pearson: so myunderstanding -- this is a china story. china has been the onethat has really been driving the excitementfor sorghum in 2015. but going into 2016the usda is no longer projecting those excitingsort of export numbers.

so if the sorghum basis atthis premium that we have been experiencing in 2015falls back, that would not be a major bearishchange, it would just be a reverting back to normalsort of situation. and i think that that'sprobably the most likely scenario for sorghum. it might not go all theway back to normal because we do have increased foodgrade use for sorghum that we hadn't seen fiveyears ago, let's say.

but otherwise, andwalt can speak to this, typically sorghum, miloand corn are basically the same value ina feed ration. hackney: i think yourcomment one to one is pretty accurate. i know as an ex-feedlotmanager i know that we looked at it in thatregard too, our feeds and feeding charts. and in regard to that iwould certainly agree with

you. the only problem is as wetalked in our conversation is in milo, when you'reflaking, if that's your goal at the feedlot, itgelatinizes much quicker than corn in the rollers. and you have an issuethere that you have to be sensitive to and you haveto turn your heat down and you've got to readjustyour rollers and so forth. pearson: now, walt, inyour conversations with

cattle feeders,particularly in kansas, oklahoma, sorghum growingareas, are they eyeing these large sorghum acresas a relatively cheap feed source for theremainder of '16? hackney: yes, i think thatyou could easily say they always are looking foralternate sources of grain that might help themin their ration costs. but there are overridingissues in regard. for instance, wheat.

you should not apply over41% of your ration as wheat in the ration andyou need to have the balance of it incorn or so forth. you have the gelatinizingissue if you're a flaker with milo. so there are thoseoffsetting circumstances that you haveto be careful. not to say you can't useit if it's financially to your advantage, but becareful if you're putting

it in the ration. and if you get it too hot,if you will, too high in the protein, then allof a sudden you start ulcerating the livers,then all of a sudden you start taking big discountsfrom the packer with ulcerated livers. pearson: this is not thetime to be taking big discounts from the packer. hackney: absolutely not.

pearson: now we wantto come back and talk livestock. but first, elaine, i wantto get your thoughts on the soybean market. as we look out thisweek, relatively flat, argentinianelection on sunday. is that going to have abig impact on the u.s. bean market on monday? kub: i hope not.

i mean, it wouldn'tlogically make sense especially because both ofthe candidates that are up for the presidency haveboth said that they intend to remove the restrictionsor the export taxes or whatever it is that hasbeen reducing the exports coming out of argentina. both of them have saidthat they want to do that. now, the actual timing,are we really going to witness thathappening very soon?

really hard to say. but when you lookshort-term this past week's export salesnumbers for soybeans was reduced or was lower thanwe've been seeing lately. so maybe our exportcustomers are looking out through 2016 anyway andsaying, well maybe we're going to turn to argentinaonce we see this happen. pearson: given thatthat's, again, another downside risk opportunityor potential i should say.

do growers need to beaggressively marketing that '15 crop here beforethese kinds of changes can take place? kub: i wouldn't say thatthis is a threat of that level just becausei believe our u.s. soybean prices live anddie based on our domestic demand more sothan exports. or we're not going to loseso many exports based on this factor alone that youneed to be worrying about

this on monday. pearson: so if folks havebeans in the bin, keep them there? what would beyour strategy? kub: yes, probablybecause they also would be seasonally expected tobe rising in the spring. but if you need cashbefore the end of the year beans are a better betthan corn just because you can raise cash faster witha bushel of soybeans than

a bushel of corn. pearson: alright. thank you so much,elaine, great answer. now, walt, want tocome over to you. we have seen a lot ofvolatility in this live cattle market inparticular, big up days, big down days, finishedthe week down a dollar. what does that mean forthe producer, the guy trying to use theboard to hedge?

how do you manage risk? hackney: i'm so glad youbrought that to the table. volatility is a new animalin the livestock industry. and it has created anenvironment in the average producer sector of hisinability to arrive at a sensible price discoveryin regard to the cash market. he can't do it. he has no sense of valuein regard to the current

cash market. as a result he can'taccurately price his product even in anegotiating environment because this volatility isup the limit one day, down the limit the next, up thelimit the next day and it has taken away from himall the confidence of arriving at pricediscovery and the value of cattle specifically. and then of course weare all aware of what has

happened to thefeeder market also. we went from in the high,historically high feeder price in the mid-summerof $2.50 or $2.60 on a six and a half weightfeeder steer for october delivery. we're down under$2 a hundred now. pearson: do feed yards getin and buy at this price? are we at a fear-basedbottom here? do you expectthings to go higher?

or do you hold off andgive it some more time and let it continue to fall? hackney: they'll buy atthe current market even though they have no realsense of price discovery in the value of thecalf or yearling. the fact remains though ifit's ridiculously priced lower well then again yes,they'll buy and fly, if you will, by the seat oftheir britches in regard to the break even and whatthe economic return on

those is going to be200 days down the road. and so as a result, you'vegot a real reluctance out here, there has been aphenomenal money drain in the cattle feedingindustry specifically. now we're seeing itin regard to the ranch community. they have loved the marketand well they should have. but now all of a suddenthose that retained the ownership of their calfcrop, for instance,

they're sitting out thereon the point of a needle and they don'tknow what to do. they can't objectivelykeep them, put them on feed, take the gambleof feeding them out. they don't have thefacilities or the grain supply and all. so they've got to lookat the cash market. and that's true in thefed cattle market too. today, as an example, mikethey're sitting here as we

speak getting bid $1.23on cattle that a week ago were at least$1.29 to $1.31. it's just phenomenalthe volatility. pearson: a $9 enginea week is incredible. now, before we let you gowalt, we want to get your thoughts on the hogmarket, up $2 this week. do we find a bottom? are we moving higher? hackney: i think it wouldbe really dangerous to be

seeking $1 or $2 as faras a bottom in the market goes. i don't know where it is,neither does anyone else. the analysts that i reallyrespect and pay attention to are fearful thatwe're going to be able to accurately and adequatelyhave a 2.3 million head hog slaughter weekly goinginto the first quarter of this coming year. they think we've got anexpansion rate out there

that is going to supplythose hogs and those numbers. alright. and we will pick that upin the market plus and get into more details. walt and elaine kub, thankyou both so much for being with us this week. hackney: you'revery welcome. pearson: that wraps upthis edition of market to

market. but elaine, walt andi will continue our discussion and answer someof your questions in that market plus segment,which you can find on our website. it's the place you'llfind audio podcasts and streaming videoof the program. you can also interact withus through our twitter and facebook feeds.

we are @markettomarket. and join us again nexttime when we'll examine a group of farmers who helppeople in need on the other side of the world. so until then,thanks for watching. i'm mike pearson. have a great week. ♪♪ market to marketis a production of iowa

public television which issolely responsible for its content.

promo 17 agustus 2016

thank you for watching movies!

katalog promosi

[translated by google translate] [tsiyon truth point tsiyon.org] [tsiyon] [presents] ["prince andy and the pedophile"] ["hillary complicit in rape cover-up claims bill is accuser"] ["did you just say jeffrey epstein?"] ["hillary hiding bill's sex crimes"] [child sex trafficking of the elite]

["what cosby's hiding"] ["hand-picked child sex slaves for jeff epstein, now she is funded by the clinton foundation"] [voice of eliyahu ben david] tonight we are going to be talking about a very serious subject, and it has to do with sexual abuse of children. nobody really wants to hear about that, nobody really wants to talk about that, and yet there is really such a big problem that we need to be aware of it. so, i just want to mention to parents, if you have children you need to decide whether you want them to hear this information or not and i leave that to your discretion. romans chapter 16:18 sums up

i think, pretty well, the situation with those who are causing this problem on a global scale. paul wrote "for suck people are slaves.. of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent." here is the statistics. myself, i believe that when you go by reports of things like this, reports are going to be far less than actual cases. however, the statistics are that 1 in 6 boys will experience, or does experience, some form of sexual abuse

and 1 in 4 girls, as children, experience some form of sexual abuse. now, as i say, i believe those numbers are probably very conservative and the case is worse, but let us say it is not worse than this. we are talking about 2 children out of every 10 children, can we really afford to have that incidence of sexual abuse in our society? how destructive really is that to the lives, not only of those particular children, but what about the lives of other people around them?

but what is responsible for this? now here is something that nobody wants you to know, nobody wants to talk about it, because it makes people feel bad. it might make you feel bad to hear about it. i am not talking about it to make you feel bad, i am talking about it because the sexual revolution changed the way that we look at marriage, that we look at families, whereas the majority of couples used to stay married. that has just gone by the wayside.

you today would have a better chance of crossing the grand canyon without a net, without any assistance, over a tightrope than getting married on your first marriage and making it all the way to the end. because the presssures are really that great today, things have changed that much. but what is the difference? what they want you to believe is, it is better now because now you have more freedom, you can be happier.

however, what about the children? this study here shows that, oh and by the way what happens to the children depends mostly on the mother. it is just a fact. with a kind of family i was talking about there was a mother with her children. mothers cannot do that anymore, most of them cannot. they have to work, that is the way the economy is structured now, the economy has changed in order to accomodate these social changes. so, this is not meant to criticize anyone, what they are doing, i understand

you know you have to do what you need to do to support your family but nevertheless as soon as the nuclear family broke up it caused a much greater incidence of abuse of all kinds and the worst possible situation is a biological mother who is cohabiting with someone other than her husband. that situation puts her children at risk 33 times greater than the two biological parents together in the nuclear family. 33 times greater. well,

how many people does that apply to today? there are probably at least just as many people living together as are married today. so, you can just imagine the scope of the problem and how much worse it really is now than it would be under a traditional kind of home. now, yes, there was, and is, sexual abuse in those kind of homes. but the statistics prove it was and is far less than what is happening under this very liberalized idea of how people should live.

well, who is doing this? who is abusing these children? again, looking at the statistics, the statistics show that it is most likely to be either a family member or an acquaintance. and least likely to be a stranger. so that is what the picture is. now you might think 'okay, well i would recognize someone who is a bad person.' but you know, you might not because

according to the statistics, 63% of those who are perpetrators have no criminal history. they are not known to be abusers. that is 2/3 of the perpetrators. so, that means that if someone has designs on abusing your child, it is probably somebody that you know and would not suspect. now i find that frightening as a parent. this is like one of the scariest things of all, so,

you see, when you think about that and then you think about the changes in the families and moms not being home with their kids anymore, and all of that, you can really see how all of this has come together in such a way as to put this tremendous burden on the children. that is where it is all falling. so what can we do about this? well there is a number of things, spiritual things, we could talk about but the very first thing is, you have to be aware. you have to know what to look for, we do not want to be looking at our family members,

at our friends, as if they are some kind of a pervert when they are not. that is kind of not going to go over well and that will certainly destroy your friendships. but at the same time, there are signs if you look for them and parenting.com lays out some things to look for. later you might look at this list and think about it a little bit more, but things like a person, an adult who, prefers spending most of his or her time with children instead of adults. now some people have to do that because of circumstances -

we are not talking about that. we are talking about someone who seems to always be gravitating towards the children when they do not have to. another sign is a person that allows children to do things their parents do not let them do. that is a tip-off right there. someone who makes fun of children''s body parts, or describes children with sexual words such as 'stud' or 'sexy' or words like this. this is not a way for an adult to be talking about a child and this is a tip-off. any adult who seems obsessed with the sexual activities of kids or teens

could possibly be someone who would be a problem. someone who asks their adult partner to dress or act like a child or teen. of course, an adult that looks at child pornography. now, if somebody is doing that, you are probably not going to know, but you might catch them at it. that would be a tip-off. someone who generally seems sexually obsessed is someone who is potentially harmful to your children. lastly, someone who has put themselves in a position of dealing with children. such as a coach, a teacher, or a counselor, and has some of these other markers as well.

this is something that happens, you know those people that who are abusers, they are looking to put themselves in a situation where they have that access. well, that is really all i am going to say about those people who maybe around us in every day life, around our children, who could be a danger to our children. but what do you do if you actually identify somebody as being an abuser of your children? well, you might think 'okay well i will call the authorities.' i am not telling you whether you should or should not, you are going to have to decide that, but the truth is, there is a big problem with that too. i found this statistic in this book.

"more than 1 in 5 children in foster care develop ptsd as a result of physical and/or sexual abuse." in other words, when the state takes children away from their parents and puts them in a foster home, 1 in 5 is not only abused, but is abused so bad they develop ptsd. that is a serious condition and it often last throughout a persons life. post-traumatic stress disorder. re-living the events over and over again like some kind of a horrible nightmare that will not go away.

foster care, the state, is doing this to so many children. in some cases the kids are in a situation where nobody listens to them, they do not get the help they need or if they do talk about it, they end up in a home where things are worse than they were. or they do not talk about it until they are an adult. then finally they are ready to be able to deal with it, and to expose the abusers. except that

in many places, the law prevents that from happening. so you grow up, you want to press charges, you want to sue that person so that someone else is not abused by them. but, if you say anything about them in many places, what you will find out is, you yourself will be sued. that it is against the law. so that is a pretty horrible situation, now, i did not know that until i looked it up, but i am pretty sure abusers know that.

they are counting on laws like this, in fact, they are behind them. now we are going to talk about homosexual child abusers. what you are going to hear about this in the mainstream press, what gets repeated over and over again, is that homosexuals are not abusers anymore than heterosexuals. yet, the information has been around for years

showing exactly the opposite to that. for instance, in one book it days 'pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association... with homosexuality.' another book says 'around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles." in a 1988 study of 229 convicted felons who were child molesters, 86% of them described themselves as gay or bisexual." so there is lots of evidence suggesting that there is a higher chance of people who are homosexual

being pedophiles as well. we have seen this, in the news, perhaps you remember jerry sandusky, who was in the news. perfect example of how this works, he would put himself in a position as a coach where he had access to his victims. there are so many people like him who have not been caught or who are protected he happens to be someone that did get caught and was prosecuted. here also is an article about foster care.

gay abusive children in foster care. many other examples could be cited, here is another one. recently, elijah wood came out and exposed child abuse, sexual child abuse, in hollywood. saying "there are a lot of vipers in this industry." he is not the only one, there have been others who have even come out and stated that they have been abused, many of the child stars that you might have known in television shows, in the movies, have been in this position. so when you have this kind of situation and in many cases this is actually homosexual abuse,

something like this is alarming. the boy scouts ending their ban on gay leaders. now they were pushed to the wall and made to do this. for...ever, since the boyscouts existed, they had a ban on homosexual leaders. why? they wanted to protect boys, it is the boyscouts right? but these are the times we are living in friends. where what matters is how the perverts feel, not the protection of our kids. that is where things have gone, that is what the law is becoming more and more.

protecting the perpetrators and making it easier to violate our children. i am not just blowing smoke. when you look at the facts, it is so alarming. let us talk about access to your children. these people have more access to your children than ever before. now we have talked somewhat about direct access right? that they put themselves at a place sometimes where they have direct access. but now we are talking about something else, another kind of access, which is through

technology. especially the internet. this is getting to be incredibly huge problem. the queensland organized crime commission of inquiry wrote about this, this is in australia. basically, all of the developed countries are having the same situation. they concluded an alarming demand for increasingly depraved material, increasing the demand for child victims. you know, when i read that just the way that is put was so shocking it almost knocked me off my feet.

just thinking in terms of demand for child victims, can you think about that? i mean, demand, i can think about demand for tomatoes or for spaghetti. but i cannot really think about demand for child victims. yet that is what they found. an alarming demand for increasingly depraved material. so, the demand is greater and what they want is worse than what they have got. i really do not want to know what that is.

but i know it must be pretty horrible. now here is something you can look for i found these images online, the fbi put this out. these are symbols that child abusers use among themselves, to identify themselves, as to who they are. so, you know, you or i we might just think that is a pretty little butterfly, we do not know what that means when we see it on somebodies website.

but, what it means is pretty horrendous, that is true with all of these things, so, that is something we can watch for when we are on the internet, that if you see any of these symbols you know that there are people there who are child abusers. this is of course a huge problem. child pornography and the internet.

those two things are just a lethal mix together because those people are into that, they know where to find that on the internet and they just feed the sickness that they have, they just feed it. of course it becomes worse and worse. will they act it out? almost all of the sexual abusers, that are arrested, admit to this. so obviously it is having a big effect. here is something that happened here in texas.

sting operations, i am so glad these are going on. alleged perverts, who surf social media websites in search of vulnerable children for sex. now, parents, you know this is the 22st century right? a lot of our kids, they have access to the internet and a lot of times we do not think anything about it. you have to realize what a dangerous place that really is. you know, some of these kids they get hooked up with people like this and you never see them again.

that happens a lot. all i would say about that is take reasonable precautions, there is software you can get for your younger children, in order to control where they go on the internet. put some thought into this to protect your children, because there is some really bad people out there. it gets pretty horrible when you put the internet together with this. that is trafficking of children. listen to this quote. "what we do see is that the trafficking of children is becoming an

income revenue stream for organized crime, for gangs. so where they would typically be selling guns and drugs, they are now turning to selling of children." you know, a lot of us, we would not even know about that whole world, right? we would not know that exist. what they are trying to tell us here is that it is the profit motive that is really driving this. that gangs, organized crime, is behind this trafficking in children, they need children in order to produce all of this slime that they put out over the internet. some of those same people pay them

to do horrible things with those same kids. they always want new faces. this is just causing this problem of trafficking children to hyper-expand. it is happening at such a huge rate, it is just amazing. then i think a lot of us have seen this in the news. this is isis, there are other groups like isis, terrorist groups, aberrant groups, who take children and women,

and girls, as slaves. they sell them in sex trafficking operations. this is very huge, who are they looking for? well, according to this source they are looking for blue eyed children. this happening to any child is a horrible thing. but you know, some people who have blue eyed children

many of them, they are the some of the people who are on the left, who are kind of supporting these radical groups and so on. i wonder what they would think if they realized that their children were considered prime property to these very people that they like to protect. these children are abducted by isis fighters to be used for sexual slavery. now, in the past, sometimes i have talked about slavery and the fact that we are still slaves, in the system. you know, you are a slave to the system.

you do not have anything to say about it, you have to pay in to the irs, you in so many ways are enslaved by the system. but the kind of slavery i am talking about is not that. i am talking about the old fashioned kind of slavery with chains, where somebody owns you and you do not have a life of your own, that kind of slavery. that kind of slavery, not only exist today, but there are more of those slaves today, right now, than at any time in history.

the people they want more than anybody else are children. there are people likely in your neighborhood, that are scoping out your neighborhood, trying to find vulnerable children that they can snatch. 20.9 million victims of human trafficking worldwide. this is such a gigantic problem! you know if the appetite had not been created for this through decades of sexual propaganda, telling these perverts that they were born that way and they cannot help it,

would you have a problem of that size? they created these people that are doing this, that is what happened. 5.5 million children, according to this, 53% are taken for sexual exploitation. some are taken for organ removal. it gets that bad. this includes the united states. look at some of the leading cities where this is such a big problem. now here is stuff you would never know unless you read it, a pimp can make

150-200,000 dollars each year, per girl. the average pimp has 4-6 girls. 9.5 billion annually in human trafficking in the united states. approxiamately 300,000 children are at risk of being prostituted in the united states according to this. here is an amazing thing, 1/3 of teens on the street will be lured toward prostitution within 48-hours of leaving home,

all they have to do is be on the street and these people will know it and they are after them. now here is an interesting statistic. 74% of these likely sex-trafficking victims were in the care of social services or foster care when they went missing. what kind of job is the government doing dealing with kids, protecting kids? this is where so many of them are ending up. this whole idea of trafficking in children is so outrageous and you know if you were born in america, you probably think of that as some kind of a third world problem. you do not really think of that as an american problem but

wake up! things have changed. this is a huge problem. if you have children, you need to realize there is people out there who want to exploit them. who have an incentive, a financial incentive, to exploit them. you need to be aware of it, because this is vastly growing. children have become a commodity. their parents need to jealously guard their little ones. vip abusers.

this is what is driving a lot of the problem, frankly. elite vip people. i mentioned about hollywood. corey feldman came out recently and he admitted that he himself, as a child actor, was sexually abused. he says he would love to name names but he says "unfortunately california, conveniently enough, has a statue of limitations that prevents that from happening. because if i were to go and mention anybody's name i would be the one that would be in legal problems

and i am the one that would be sued." this is all set up to protect hollywood from these charges coming forward. hollywood is a big center of industry in california. they have a lot of influence, obviously, they have a lot of influence on the law, plus it is a very liberal kind of place where hey, everybody there thinks everyone is born that way, right? so there is no protection for the children. that is the bottom line, over and over again, that is the bottom line.

famous people. you know what? we know about famous people that are out there walking the streets, right? right now, who are sexual abusers. some of the magazines, they follow those people around. why are they not behind bars? in the united kingdom there was recently five pedophile rings that were exposed in secret dossiers, so i cannot tell you who these people were. i can tell you that twenty-four are currently serving in the government.

we know that much. there is murders connected with this, it is a really nasty deal. "judge vows to uncover truth from corridors of power to children's homes. vip sex abusers will be named." well it turns out they will not be named. in australia an investigation turned up 26 insitutions involved in abuse of children, involving vip's. "in australia, the high-profiled sexual abusers, child molesters, rapists, pedophiles, are very well protected.

the freemasons and many other such organizations...all protected by the powerful of our country. we have powerful businessmen and others involved in sex trafficking, girls from europe, south africa, china. details were given to the prime ministers office tony abbott, none of these men have been brought to justice. the powerful, the elite, can do what ever they want, because they know they have protection." this is what is happening. the elite perverts can do whatever they want because they think they own you, they think they own your children, and the government is not giving them any reason to think anything different.

here is an interesting article. 'how this billionaire escaped sex trafficking charges' now this was in the news, jeffrey epstein. billionaire friends with royalty, friends with the clinton's, and a lot of other famous people. the man had an island, his own island, where he was sex trafficking. bringing underage children there and then bringing in the wealthy elite to come and have big parties abusing the children. well, thankfully they found out about it and he is going to be in prison the rest of his life. not!

you know what happened with him? thirteen months in the country jail in florida. even there, he was allowed to visit his office everyday and a cushy one year house arrest. as i mentioned, his friends, bill clinton, prince andrew, and many others, arranged for him to have special treatment from the state attorney's office, and the u.s. department of injustice. oh, that is supposed to be justice. i cannot say that about them.

"his team of lawyers is accused of digging up dirt on epstein's roughly 40 victims, following them and intimidating them. they have now effectively been silenced, many with one-million dollar settlements. epstein was allowed to plead guilty to 2 lower level state crimes rather than face child sex trafficking charges." what do you think that he is just going to be doing this some more? maybe he is doing it right now. after all, he has got lots of customers among all of the elite. including, apparently, this guy. his name was found twenty-one times in jeffrey epstein's directory

to go out to his private island where the abuse of children seemed to be what it was all about. these are just a few things, you know if i went into all of these different cases, having to do with the elite, my whole message would be about that. really, that is true with any aspect here. it is huge, but you can see where the elite are really behind, driving, a lot of this trafficking in children. well, now that we want to get back to what is at the root of all of this. the 'born this way' deception. i have taught you this in the past.

in "psychology today" it said: "no one has yet identified a particular gay gene." it is known that there is no gay gene. here is a little more about that from the washington times. the headline "born gay or transgender - little evidence to support innate trait" little is too much, there is no evidence actually. that is what they said - no evidence. 143 page paper, put together by experts in the field, who literally comb through all the information available, to come to that conclusion.

in the report they say: "the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property - that people are 'born that way' - is not support by scientific evidence." yet, almost everybody thinks that is how it is. "likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex - so that a person might be a 'man trapped in a woman's body' or a 'woman trapped in a man's body' - is not supported by scientific evidence," the report states. "the authors also say there is scarce evidence to suggest that sex reassignment

medically benefits patients - one reason that dr. mchugh in his capacity as pyschiatrist in chief at johns hopkins hospital, ended the practice in the 70's." they ended sex reassignment surgery at johns hopkins hospital in the 70's. they knew way back then that this was not helpful to people and was even harmful to people so much so they ended it. now

the obama administration is pushing to get this into every hospital in the country. can you imagine? they mentioned children as young as 2 years old being recommended for sex reassignment. there is not even any evidence that this is any kind of a treatment, anything other than abuse of those children. it is outrageous, you know what? craziness and stupidity and propaganda has horrible effects on people. we need to know the truth. that is what everybody needs.

well, here is a gentleman, oklahoma state senator joseph silk. he wanted to allow people businesses, to decide who they want to serve. it is their business, they own the business, they want to be able to decide who they serve int heir business. the lgbt activist did not like that and issues death threats against the mans children and family. because of introducing this bill. this is what you are dealing with, with this.

interestingly, it seems like the system speaking, the federal government, seems to support these radicals instead of supporting the ordinary people, their families, and their children. why is that happening? this is even happening in school. i think we pretty much all know that the teachers union is very left-leaning and teachers,

not all teachers, but many of them think of themselves as progressive or liberals. but really, some of what is out there is kind of beyond the pale at this point, and is shocking to me even knowing those facts. this is the website of the national council of teachers of english. now how bad could it be from the english teachers of america, right? when you think about an english teacher you think of some bespectacled librarian-type person, do you not? how could this person possibly be a danger to your children?

well, guess again. this is about diverse gender expression and gender non-conformity curriculum in english grades 7-12. here is some of the things that have been written. they produced a guide for english teachers suggesting that they make english more 'gay-friendly'. now let me quote what they say here: "position your students as lgbt people or their straight allies." they start out with this, actually assuming, their students are either

part of this lgbt community, which is less than 3% of the population, or one of their allies. that is the way they are coming at it. they go on: "they are likely being positioned as straight and/or homophobic in most other parts of their lives." yes, their parents. you know, their 'dumb' parents at home are telling them that they are going to grow up and get married to a woman, if a man, or vice versa, and have a family together. that is homophobic, you cannot be saying that to your kids.

instead you have to let them know that they can be part of this deviant community. well also, besides positioning them as homophobic, or as non-homophobic, or whatever, they go on to say "read lgbt-themed literature that does not just make homosexuality visible, but also shows queer people in queer communities; young people need to know that being gay does not mean being alone." so in other words, they want to indoctrinate them 'if you become gay, you are going to have a lot of cool friends that are gay too.'

this is like, to me, this is like a sales pitch for the kids. selling them on being part of the lgbt community. you know what? if your teacher is selling you on this, that this is such a good thing, how many of these kids are going to get misdirected into something that really is not them at all. "classrooms are typically set up to reflect sustaining 'hetero-normativity'." i have to tell you, i favor hetero-normativity. okay? i am one of those people that they do not like, apparently. they say "we hope to encourage a continued, fluid recognition of 'gender' as something that is complex,"

and so on. they also say "hetero-sexism", see, i am a heterosexist in their view. "and homophobia, are already part of the classroom," i may be a heterosexist but i am not a homophobe. i am not afraid of those people. that is what homophobia means, you are afraid of them. no, i am not afraid of them. i just think that they have chosen the wrong thing and they are trying to get other people to choose it too.

that, i am opposed to. so anyway, they are saying "hetero-sexism and homophobia are already part of the classroom, so we will need to use a variety of strategies to counter these beliefs." now think about that. are they really thinking about the classroom or are they thinking about the children's parents here? they are countering beliefs, what kind of beliefs do you think they are countering? do you think maybe people that believe in the bible is what they are trying to counter, but they cannot say that in their journal?

we are really not as dumb as they think we are, we can really understand what they are saying. here is their summary. "by learning to read through a gendered lens and by posing challenges to the gender binary," the gender binary is male and female, which happens to be the biological binary. by challenging that "students become consciously aware of gendered constructions of identity and their role as both consumers and possible producers of meaning. this act is potentially liberating for students,"

what are they trying to do? they are indoctrinating children in this lgbt philosophy, they want to 'liberate' them from their heterosexual beliefs. are they not trying to convert these kids into lgbt people? is that not what they want? i put these notes here: the overall goal is clearly to encourage students to question their beliefs on gender - particularly boy, girl "binary" gender roles - and to embrace lgbtq, gender fluid thinking.

i put: it is not hard to envision the harm this will cause! can you imagine this? children, all over the country becoming confused about their gender. or in some cases thinking that maybe they will be more cool if they are part of this new cool community, the lgbtq community. you know, maybe their life is real sucky, in their language, and they want to do something to change their life, so they listen to all of this nonsense, then pretty soon they find themselves in a hospital undergoing

a sex-change operation. how many kids are going to have this happen to them because of these teachers? can you imagine it? what about this problem? could this be connected? this is a website i found online: 'bad bad teachers' is the name of it. probably you have noticed in the news, there is a continual string of, specifically, female teachers who are sexually abusing their students.

have you seen that? this website list many of them and tells about their cases, this is like a hugely growing phenomenon that is happening right now. do you think this could be happening because the teachers themselves are being indoctrinated that they are born that way and everything sexual is okay! i mean, we just read it, is that not propaganda that they are putting forward to the teachers? why would we not think that a lot of those teachers, who are women, would not be affected by that?

you think they are just going to limit that to some kind of a black and white text book. these things have a way of taking on a life of their own and apparently have in the lives of a lot of people, a lot of teachers. so what happens when a female teacher abuses her male students? well in many cases, not much happens. they might lose their job

but in many cases they do not even have any jail time. we have one person here that had a sentence of a year in jail, so probably did less than that, if any. two that had no jail time at all, i did not go through all of them. but that seems to be the trend. so here we have people to whom we have entrusted our precious children. they have violated that trust, they have used their position of authority in the lives of these children to abuse them.

what happens with them? they get a little slap on the wrist, they do not even get jail time for doing what they are doing, what is the message that that is sending to the children? what are we really telling these children? are we not telling them as a society, they do not really matter all that much? that it cannot really be wrong and you know what? eventually society will catch up with the 'cool' people and understand that this is all 'okay'. that is what they are thinking, that is what a lot of them are thinking. you know on this website,

there is comments. basically i just summed up the comments for you, that is what a lot of people are thinking. [with: eliyahu ben david] [this video has been produced by: the tsiyon team] [visit us online: www.tsiyon.org] [watch us on youtube: www.youtube.com/tsiyontabernacle] [fair use notice] [copyright 2016 tsiyon.org]

katalog promo

>> [music playing] >> abby fichtner: hello, i'm abby fichtner. most people know me as hackerchick, because i do the hacker chick blog on how to build better technology. and i'm also over atharvard innovation labs. do you know the innovation lab? ok, so that is wicked fun. i'm hacker in residencethere, where my role is to help students do everything fromhacking on cool side projects, all

the way up to starting tech startups. >> i am a programmer, sothat's my background. i kind of got into programming andstartups by an interesting route. when i was in school, i wantedto be a management consultant, because i thought thatwould be the shit. i don't know if that's still a thing. do students still want tobe management consultants? is that considered really cool? >> ok, so i thought that was really cool.

i landed a job with one ofthe top management consulting firms right out of school. i was very excited right upuntil i started working there, and then absolutely hated it. i didn't like the company. i didn't like the culture. >> i didn't like anything about itexcept that they very bizarrely put me in programming, which wasreally weird, because my title wasn't programmer.

there was nothing that i canremember in the interview about, you're going to be programming. i thought i was going be consultingmanagers, whatever that means. i'm still not actually sure, butit made sense to me at the time. >> so i go there, and theyactually gave me an office, which was cool, because i thinkit's the only job i've ever had where i had an office. and they gave me a computer and this bigequipment that the computer was hooked up to, so i was writing code to controlthis equipment, which was really neat.

and that part i actually liked. >> and i was doing code for thensa, which was really weird. it was my first job out of college. and so i'm writing this code. i'm just totally hacking,because i have no idea what i'm doing, and tryingto make it do things. >> and i get to this point where i'm usinglibraries to control this equipment. and i can only dowhat's in the libraries, and the thing that i need to do,there isn't any functions for.

and i'm like, ok. but there was a supportnumber, so i call up the company who created the software,and i said i need to do this. and they were like,yeah, you can't do that. and it was my first job out ofschool and my first project, and i just didn't feel like i couldjust go to the boss and be like-- and he did just kindof put me on my own. >> i didn't really feel likei could go to the boss to be like, oh, go tell the nsa sorry,we're not going to do this for them,

because the library isn't available. it just didn't seem acceptable. and so i kind of stayed up allnight hacking something together, and i made it work. >> and it was this turning momentfor me, where it just clicked. and i realized this iswhat i wanted to do. i thought it was the coolest thingever, that i was like i did something that the creators of the softwarethought weren't even possible. and i was possibly the firstperson ever to do this, right?

and it wasn't that big of a thing,but it was just such a cool idea. >> and so i left the bigmanagement consulting firm, and i went to work for startups,because startups are all about creating things thatno one's ever created before. and i thought that was themost awesome thing ever. so i did that for a numberof years, kind of built out the technology for startups. and then i kind of, as i wassaying before, got into this area where i'm just going around helpinghackers and tech entrepreneurs who

are building innovative,disruptive products-- helping them to do that and find waysto do that in which they can be successful in the market. >> so that's what i want totalk to you guys about today. so for me, i think it's a reallyexciting time to be in this space right now, because technology isexpanding at this incredible rate, and it's making all theseopportunities available that were never available before. so i feel like we're back to thatpoint, where you can create things

that no one ever created before. and especially, you lookat things like 3d printing. so people are 3d printing thingslike human organs or food. nasa has started 3dprinting food astronauts, so this is a 3d printerwith dough and pizza sauce and cheese as its cartridges,rather than polymers. >> and cars. urbee 3d printed the world'scheapest and most fuel efficient car, and they're about to driveit across the country

on under 10 gallons offuel, which is pretty crazy. and of course, everything going onwith mobile, and the fact with things like 3d printing are making creatingphysical devices so much cheaper has led to the internet of things,which is this notion that hey, why do we have to have the functionalityin our computers and our tablets? why don't we take it outof those and actually put it right into thedevices, where we care about. >> and so we're gettingthings like-- david rose over at the media lab created anumbrella that tells the weather.

and so you can imagine it inan umbrella stand by the door. and as it senses you walk past it,if it's going to rain, it'll blink, so you know to take it with you. or valour created a bike thatgives you directions and gives you all of your riding stats. >> or hapi created a fork thatmonitors your eating habits to help you eat more healthy. and everything from self-drivingcars to mind-controlled helicopters-- >> [laughs slightly]

>> even things that we thought of asvery low-tech, like reading the news. gannett just announced thatthey're working on virtual reality journalism, where you absorbthe news not by reading it, but by actually experiencingit and being a part of it. or other things that we might thinkof as low-tech, like gardening, because you need to de-stress. because i don't knowabout you guys, but i would find living thenews being very stressful. >> [laughs]

>> a team out of mit, grove, hascreated a produce appliance that actually, you can put in yourkitchen to grow fruits and vegetables. and so it's really coollooking at all of the startups. there's just this amazingnumber of startups that are out these daysthat are trying to take advantage of these technologies. and what's really interesting-- justlooking at all of these things that are coming up, but realizing only a verysmall percentage of those startups are actually going to makeit into the future,

and kind of understanding why some ofthem make it and some of them don't. >> so i gave a talk last monthat an engineering conference, and i wanted to talk tothem about this topic. and i thought they're engineers. they want rules. like, i'm an engineer. i like rules. it's very nice and neat, right? so i was trying to come upwith the rules of innovation.

>> and as soon as i did that, irealized that's kind of silly. the first rule of innovation is thatthere are no rules of innovation. because if you're doingit right, then you're breaking more rules than your following. and, of course, thomas edisonfamously said that "i have not failed. i've just found 10,000ways that won't work." and so, of course, the moreinnovative that you're being, you need to kind ofexpect that you're going to find more ways that don't work.

but the good news is that it'snot a complete black hole. when you look at the startupsthat have been successful, the innovators that havebuilt these products that have been successful inmarkets, what you'll see is time and again, the samepatterns emerging of the things that they're doing. and a lot of these, when youkind of dig down into them, they're kind of predicated on a lot ofthe principles behind lean and agile-- and people just taking those and saying,how can these make sense for a startup?

>> so i want to go through these. to be honest, i think i'dlike to spend about half the time on this last one-- this "focus! and get shit done." because really, that'swhat it comes down to. but i think the first four arereally important to understand the context and themindset that you need to enter into when you're doingsomething really innovative that hasn't been done before.

>> so the first principleis eliminate waste, which, if you know anythingabout lean principles, that's one of the keyprinciples of lean. and, in fact, eric ries, who'sthe creator of the lean startup methodology, says the number onemost important thing for a startup is learning to tell the differencebetween value and waste-- which is pretty weird, right? like how could you not knowwhat's value and what's waste? >> but i think it makes more sense ifyou think about the roots of lean.

so lean comes from lean manufacturingtoyota production system in japan. and "waste" is a translation from theterm "muda," which is actually broader. so really, what you wantto do is eliminated muda. and muda means not justanything that's unproductive, but anything that isn'tadding value today. because especially whenyou're doing something so uncertain as doing a startup,creating something innovative, if you think that you'regoing this way and you start building somethingfor this, and then you

find out what's really goingon and you go this way, then anything you did overhere is wasteful, right? and so in agile, we havean expression called yagni, which is "youain't gonna need it." >> [chuckles] >> so it's a really good thing to rememberas you're building new technologies. anything that you thinkthat you're going to need, just assume that you'renot until you do. >> so it's interesting to look atexamples of startups that have made it

and see where they came from. so paypal actually started as away to beam payments between pdas. but it turned out that the worldwasn't ready for mobile payments in '99, right? we're only just startingto get there now. >> flickr started as a massivelymultiplayer online role playing game. but it turned out, likewhen people were playing it, that the most fun aspectwas sharing photos. it's kind of funny.

>> and then instagram startedas a gamified foursquare. and they actually built out the entireapp and looked at it, and went wow, there is way too much going on here. this is way too complex. and they just scrapped the wholething and said, you know what? we're just going to focusagain on the photos. and that was what wassuccessful for them. and so these are the ones thatmade it, but when you kind of look across the board, thestats are pretty bleak.

because the stats are that nineout of ten new products fail, which is pretty abysmal. and as developers, as peoplewho work with technology, i think when we lookat a stat like this, we understand how hard itis to build the tech when you're building somethingthat's not been built before. and we assume that these are failingbecause we can't build the technology. but when you really dig deep,what's happening-- these products aren't failing because thetechnology didn't work.

they're failing becausethe people who created them weren't able tofind a market for them. >> my favorite example ofthis is a company called actuality systems, whichwas actually here in boston. they created a 3d holographic display. that's pretty badass, right? they create it, and theygot it working, and then they spent the next 10years-- so they created this. this would be impressiveto create today, right?

they created this over 10 years ago. they spent the next 10 years tryingunsuccessfully to find a market for it and create a viable business out ofit, and in the end had to shut down, and all they could do was selloff a license for the technology. so were they successful in innovating? i mean, they got the technology to work. that's amazing. but if you're trying to actuallybuild a viable business out of this, not so much.

>> and so what's interestingis there's been research into what's the single biggestpredictor of startup failure. do any of you want toguess what this is? >> audience: no market? >> abby fichtner: no market, yes. so something that actually i shouldhave said-- something that startups do, that if they do this thing, it'sthe biggest predictor that they're going to fail, or the biggest indicator. so no market is sort ofsomething that happens to them.

>> so don [inaudible] dida survey into this, and what he found was the singlebiggest predictor of startup failure was sticking to the initialbusiness plan-- which is pretty confusing, right? because if you're startingon any new venture, you should try to figure outif you're on track or not. even that terminology, on track, impliesthat you're talking according to plan. and so if sticking to planmeans that you're going to fail, it's very confusing.

right? >> and so that brings us toinnovation pattern number two, which is that youshould really start small. and this sort of breaksour mental model, i think, for how people thinkabout how startups operate. because i feel like we've got this imageof startups as go big or go home, baby. like i've got a big vision, and boom. i'm going to go big, and i'mgoing to be the next facebook. >> but the question is howdo you do that, right?

how do you go from nothing butan idea to like a billion users, like facebook has? how would you even build outenough features from day one that you could appealto a billion users? and even if you wanted tobuild the next facebook tomorrow, how do you startgetting people on it? because would any of you use "the nextfacebook" if no one you knew was on it? probably not, right? >> and so what i view startupsas-- when you're really early

stages-- sort of doing the search forthe intersection of our big vision of what we want to accomplish with whatreality can actually accommodate today. and the way that you do thisis usually through a series of small experiments or small tasks. so just to take a couple examplesof companies that have made it big and how they started,microsoft started with writing a version of basic, whichis a programming language, for the altair, which waslike the first home computer. so i don't know exactlyhow many altairs were made,

but i'm guessing only a few thousand. so this is not a big market, right? >> and then, of course, facebook, whichis the quintessential-- go big, become the next facebook--started here at harvard, where there's only 20,000 students. so again, not a big market. and so when you're thinking aboutthe mental model for how startups should look, it shouldlook more like this. you start with your bigvision, but then you go small.

and you figure out a way todominate a really niche market, and then you can build onthat success to go big. and there's a couple reasons for this. one is if we accept the fact thatsticking to the initial business plan's going to fail, we're going tofind 10,000 ways that don't work, whatever, we're going tomake a lot of mistakes. we're going to have a lot of misses. if we try to go big, we're going touse up all of our time and resources on the wrong thing.

and so it's much better to gosmall so we can experiment quickly. >> but even more importantly,it's so much easier to be successful when we gosmall, because all you have to do is find that market that you want togo after-- that really niche market. and then just identify theone thing that they're really dying to have, and build that for them. and then you can be really compelling. >> so like the altair users really wanteda way to program their computer. and i don't know-- i think itwas just like toggle switches

and blinking lights, right? so i don't know how they did that. so providing basic so theycould program it is amazing. or harvard students just wanted asingle, centralized student directory, right? and so facebook only had toprovide that one feature. they didn't have to build it out likeit is today to really get traction. >> so that takes us to numberthree, which is in order to find that one feature thatyour market is really dying for,

you have to really deeplyunderstand your customers. and i feel like people underestimatethe importance of this-- especially today, when there's somany startups that are out there. if you are really looking at what'sgoing on in the startup space, you're going to find 100 startupsall doing the same thing. >> and that's because everybody can seethat technology is here today, right? but we want to be here. so people see those gaps, andeverybody tries to go after those gaps. and you have all these startupsall doing the same thing,

and you're like, why isn'tany of them succeeding? there's a gap here. i believe that the onesthat are going to succeed are the ones that take the time toreally understand their customers. a great example of this,i think, is dropbox. when drew houston, the founder, wentto try to raise money for dropbox, the vcs really discouraged him. they're like, i don't understandwhy you're even entering this space. there's already like a million billioncloud storage startups out there.

>> and drew was like, yeah,but do you use any of them? and they weren't. and so i feel like drewsucceeded because a, he started with a small market. he didn't try to go after everybody. he went after thehardcore techies who have a lot of devices, a lotof computers, and they have this problem in transferring files. and he just targeted them.

and all he had to do was providea solution that worked for them. >> so again, i feel like there'sa lot of myths around startups, because we see so manystartups happening today. and you just hear the 20,000 footview of oh, they made it overnight. they were a success. but the myth of if you build it,they will come-- when you really dig deep into what's happeningin those success stories, time and again, i think whatyou'll find are founders who went to these extraordinarylengths to understand their customers.

so just to give a couple examples-- idon't know if this is still the case, but at least initially, oneof the co-founders of airbnb did not own or rent a home. he just went aroundand lived in airbnbs. like i don't even know what that lookedlike-- like living out of a suitcase? >> or ben silverman frompinterest is amazing at this. he went and personally reachedout to the first 5,000 customers. he gave them his cellphone. he met them for breakfast.

i just spoke to theircto a couple weeks ago. and they're enteringinto new countries now, and he's going out and doing it again. so he's incredible for going outand individually talking to people. so, of course, as you're going outand having these conversations, what you want to be doing is alwayslearning from your customer about what's going to make senseand what's going to be successful. i feel like the beststartups, the best innovators, treat innovation as if it was ascience experiment-- or in a very

scientific way, i guess i should say. >> so i'm not a scientist, but asi understand, scientists come up with hypotheses, and then they developexperiments to validate or invalidate their hypotheses. and so the question is how canwe do that with innovation? we have an idea, but it's just an idea. if we're truly doing somethingthat's never been done before, all we have are guesses. and so what are some experiments thatwe can do to validate or invalidate

those ideas without buildingout the entire thing? >> so talking is great,and i can't actually emphasize how strongly--how important it is to go out and talk to yourcustomers, at least initially, to understand who theyare, what problems they have today, how they'resolving them today. but talking can only take you so far. you can't use talking to say,hey, i've got this great idea! do you want to buy it?

because they're going to belike, oh, yeah of course. that sounds great. >> because people want to encourage you. they see that you're excited aboutsomething, so they're going to say yes. and people-- human beings are justterrible at predicting their behavior. and so if you ask them-- if you say,i'm going to, at some point in a future, release this abstract, hypotheticalproduct, are you going to want it? they might say no, but if youactually put it in front of them, they might want it.

>> and so really, to do thetest of understanding if people are going towant it or not, you really need to put something in front of them. so i like this quote from linustorvalds, which is "talk is cheap. show me the code." or if you're a startup, youmight say, "talk is cheap. show me the mvp." >> so have you guys heard mvp,minimum viable product? it's kind of this buzzword thati love and hate at the same time.

because i love the concept of it,but it gets a little bit overused. but the idea is valid,which is don't go build out this product that's goingto take you a year to build. instead, figure out what's that onething that people are dying for? what's the minimum thingi can build for them? and put that in front ofthem, and see how they react. >> so quintessential mvp is a landing page. i'm sure you guys have seen this. if you tried to sign up for ello orgmail's new inbox, and they're like oh,

we're not ready yet! i guess those are a littledifferent, because those are ready. but they give you a landing page, andit's like, it's invite only right now. but give us your email address. right a lot of places will do this beforethey've even built out the product, just to see if there's interest or not. so with dropbox, drew houston, therewas complex technology behind it. so he went, and he figured out thetechnology-- kind of proved that out,

that that was going to work. but before he builtout the final product, he did this mock-up on his computer,this three-minute screencast video-- very scrappy. put it out on hacker news, becausehe knew was sort of his audience, were the really technical people. put up a landing page thatjust said, here's the video. we haven't launched yet, but if you'reinterested, give us your email address. >> overnight, got 75,000sign-ups, which is incredible.

even today, that would beimpressive, but today, they have like 300 million users, right? when he posted this,nobody knew who dropbox was because they didn't exist yet. and so that was a really strong signalthat he had gotten something right. >> to give you a little bit moreextensive of an example of that, do you guys know buffer? it's a social mediasharing site, and the idea is-- i tend to read newsat like 2:00 am, because i

don't want to go to sleep. and so i might read like 10articles that are all really cool and i want to share them with people. but a, if i share themout on twitter right now, nobody is awake at2:00 am except for me. and b, if they are awake,they're like why are you spamming me with 10articles at once, right? and so what it does is it'skind of a queue or a buffer that you add things to, and it'llpush them out a couple times a day

at a more realistic schedule. >> so this is how it looks today. that's not how it started. the founder had this idea, andhe thought this was a good idea, but he didn't want to build it. he didn't want to quithis day job yet until he got some validation that other peoplethought it was a good idea, too. so he didn't even need a video. it was such a simple concept.

>> just start with twitter,puts up a landing page. this is what we do. he tweets it out. when people click plans andpricing, it just gives them a "you caught us before we'reready." but if you're interested, give us your email address. tweets it out. people went to the site. they were given their email address.

>> he was like, ok, that's a pretty goodindicator that there's some interest, so i'm ready to go to the next step. but i don't want to build it yet. i want to see-- people are interested,but can i make money off of it? can i make it into a business? so all he did was added a middle pagewhen people clicked plans and pricing with three pricing plans-- one was free. two were paid. >> kept tweeting it out.

people kept clicking. most people did the free plan,but some people did the paid plan. he's like, you know what? that's enough validation-- notfor me maybe to quit my day job and spend a year on this, but forme to just go heads-down and do a really simple version of this. he thought it was goingto take him a day. technology's hard, so ittook him like seven days. but it was enough for himto spend seven days on it.

>> and very quickly, he startedgetting users on that first version, even though it was very minimal. and what was awesomeabout that was he was able to see how peoplewere really using it, and then kind of evolveit based on them using it. so buffer's wonderful, becauseit's a really simple example. not all technology isthat simple, but this is sort of the quintessentiallean startup approach, right? this is great-- you'retesting it every step,

and you're only goingfar enough that you've validated that it's kindof worth your time to do. >> another great way to getvalidation, of course, is doing a crowdfundingcampaign like kickstarter, where you can get pre-orders. this makes a lot of sense if you'redoing anything that's hardware. again, pebble was thebiggest kickstarter until that title got taken by acooler-- did you guys see this? like an actual cooler that youbring to the picnic beat out,

so they got more than $10 million. [laughs slightly] >> but again, like dropbox, withpebble, it was complex technology. they had to do a proof of concept,make sure they could prove out that the technology could work. but then it's expensive to manufacture,so before they actually manufactured, they put up a kickstarter. and they used it toget pre-orders, right? they said if we can get$100,000 in pre-orders,

it's worth it to go forward. they got $10 million, so doingpretty good-- pretty good validation. >> so these ideas are all reallygreat, but as we say in startups, ideas are a dime a dozen. it's all about execution. so this is my favoritepart is the "focus! so the best entrepreneursare able to just have this crazy, intense hyper-focus andget things done at an amazing pace. >> so i kind of walk through someof the development practices.

and ask questions if you have them. i wasn't quite sure how much you guysknew about development practices, so kind of have adiscussion about what that looks like when you'redeveloping something like this. so the first thing isto figure out ok, what is it that i should be focusing on--which can be really challenging when you're doing something new. because everybody has allthese ideas, and there's so many different directions you cango, and so many different questions

that you have. >> so step number one, figureout what to focus on. a lot of times, as developers, as peoplewho are thinking about technology, we're really thinkingabout the products. we think about things kind of inthis order-- first, can i build it? assuming that i can build it, thencan i get people to know about it? assuming that i can, cani make money from it? >> but if we're trying todo a viable business, we might want to be thinkingof those in the opposite order.

the reason is i feel like-- andi do this myself, so i get it. i feel like we get very hungup on this "can i build it?" question, because if you're a technologyperson-- if you're a developer-- you're really thinking about that. >> but the truth is usually, when wecome up with an idea for a startup, we're coming up with it based oni've seen this technology here and this technology hereand this technology here, and if i just combinethem in some new way, i think it would be really interesting.

well, if i've already seen thetechnology in those places, you kind of know it exists, right? >> so sure, do some proof of concepts. if there's some technical risk in there. but for the most part, the thingsthat we're coming up with-- unless we're really awesome and doingsomething totally new, in which case, figure out if you can build it. but usually, most of thestartups i see, you can build it. that isn't even a question.

>> so start thinking aboutis something that people are going to be able to pay me forand then how am i going to reach them? that's really hard, especiallyif you are a technical person, do you have a way toreach out to these people and get them to buy your product? >> so once you figure out, ok, what's thatquestion-- kind of always have in mind, this is the most important questionthat i need to be driving towards, or the most important thingthat i need to be validating. and then you want to get back tothis notion of eliminating waste.

just figure out like theleanest, most efficient way that you can go aboutanswering that question. >> so i talked aboutminimum viable product. i would say get into this mindsetof minimum viable everything-- by which i don't mean that you shouldbe doing a crappy job at things. i just mean how canyou cut out the waste? how do you get just rightto the heart of the matter and figure out how to validatethings without gold-plating, without doing more than you need to.

>> so just to give some examples,i feel like initially, you're trying to figure out ihave this great idea. is anyone even going to want it? so a really easy way to do that is alanding page, like we talked about. you don't have to writeany code for that. there's tools that do it for you. >> if you say, ok, i figured that out. now i want i'm assuming that--ok, people seem to want it. would they actually pay me money for it?

you can do things like whatbuffer did with the pricing page, or even better, a kickstarterand get pre-orders. orders >> the next thing that i think you'regoing to be wanting to look at is-- ok, it seems like people wanted it. it seems like people will payfor it, but especially with apps, will people actually use it? so i don't know the stats,but they're pretty abysmal. a huge number of apps getdownloaded and then never used.

and that isn't helpful. that's nice that you got alot of people downloading it. but if it's not used, you're notgoing to stick around for long. when you're thinkingabout that first version that you want to put out there--your minimum viable product-- think about what is it exactlythat i'm trying to test? and what can i do thatjust figures that out? i just kind of took a guess at this. i don't actually know what buffer'sfirst version looked like exactly.

but if you think about buffer-- justbecause of this simple example-- you might think thisis what they feel like as their first minimum viable product. i need to be able tocreate a user account, obviously, link it to mysocial media accounts. i need to add posts liketweets into my buffer. edit them. delete them. >> set the time when iwant those to be posted.

obviously, the software needsto automatically post to twitter or whatever based on that schedule. and then i should be able toview a history of my post. that feels pretty minimal,pretty basic, right? >> i always encourage startups--especially like, this is easy for us, because it's not our baby. be like, oh, yeah whatever look at itagain, and keep saying is there a way that i can get itstripped down even more? >> so what is it we'retrying to figure out?

if we're trying to figureout if they'll use it, we're trying to see if are they evengoing to post anything to the bumper? so this feels a little hacky, but ifthey haven't posted it to the buffer yet, you don't reallyneed to allow them to edit or delete or view posts in history. if you can plant that somethingout there really quickly and see if people can even addpostings to it, once you see that, you can very quickly startadding on this functionality. but just get something out there.

do you need to allow the userto set a posting schedule? probably not, if they're likeme and they're just like, i don't want my all my treats goingout at 2:00 am on sunday night. >> you can say these arethe most popular times. whatever, we're just goingto post it according to that. you can probably do that. and then i kind of made this up, becausei know they only started with twitter. but obviously, you canjust pick the social media network that makes the mostsense and just start with that.

and so now you're downto four out of 10. >> and if you can get somethingout there, a pet peeve of mine is that people think andmvp means crappy product. and i don't think it needs. i think you can get somethingout there that it's still useful, but isn't gold plated-- isjust the absolute bear minimum. and i guess you have to kind of figureout based on your audience what's going to make sense or what isn't. >> but a lot of times you getsomething out there more minimal

than you'd think-- just atest, how people use it. so as you're buildingout these features, you want to think about what'sthe minimum viable process. and so a lot of times when we thinkabout really lightweight processes, we think about agile processes. we think about lean-- this is a littlebit random-- just some agile and lean books that i like. so there's great practiceslike from extreme programming and continuous integration,and refactoring,

which i'll speak to a little bit. but the thing is, once you start gettinginto the agile and mean practices, it can very quickly get overwhelming. and it can wind up beginreal overkill for a startup. >> so the thing is thata lot of these books are talking about howto do agile when you're doing a product for anestablished company. and you know who the market is, andyou know what your product road map. and they wind up-- eventhough we're supposed

to be light weight-- they wind upactually being way too heavyweight for our startup, becausethe startup is just operating at thiscompletely different level. so my feel is that whenyou're going a startup, you need to be scrappy as hell. so initially, there's no process. you want to keep itas simple as possible. and only add process that'ssort of a just-in-time process. ok, we see that there's a problem?

let's add just enough processto address that problem. do you know what i mean? it's because you don't want anyof us holding you down, right? >> scrum is a really popularprocess for agile development. i don't know if you guysare familiar with this. ok, well-- >> it would be just toooverkill for a startup. so i won't worry about that. so ok, if you think about what's theabsolute simplest thing that i need.

well, i need to probablykeep track of what i'm doing, especially ifthere's more than one person, but even if there's one person. what am i working on? >> so a simple task board-- very easy. this is what i want to do. this is what i'm working on. this is what i've done. the only problem that i see when i seestartups doing something like this,

is that very quickly,their in-progress column tends to look like that, which is notvery helpful-- especially if there's only one person or only one developer. >> because you're notgetting anything done. all you're doing is going back and forthtrying to get all these things done. and so this is a really good exampleof where just enough process can come. so kanban is a really great tool. it comes also from lean manufacturing. >> and the idea is that what wewant to do is put constraints

around how much work we canhandle at any given time. and so if we're one person, then wecan only work on one item at a time. sorry. so all that other stuffneeds to go over there. so what we do is we put work inprogress limits on the columns. if there's two people, it can be two. you can figure out whatmakes the most sense for you. >> but the idea is keep thingssane, so that you're just doing one thing at a time.

you're able to do it. you're able to actually get it done. one thing to keep in mindis-- if you have a one item that you're doing but theitem takes three months, that would be a difficult fora startup, obviously. you need to be ableto be flexible and be able to handle thingsas they come at you. you can't say i'm not doinganything for three months until i get the login screen done.

i don't know. >> so i advise startups tokeep this really short, to keep these tasks sothat they fit into a day. obviously, if it's more complex, thatmight need to be a little bit longer. but figure out what works best for you. you can try different lengths. but generally, just as anexample, if you keep all the tasks so they fit within one day, thatmeans that every single day, you're getting something done.

and you're providing value. and that momentum canreally move you forward instead of the situation before,where you have 500 things going, and none of them are done. the other thing,though, is still looking at this to-do column-- i'moverwhelmed looking at that. and so if i was a developer and i wasworking on a, and i was like oh, shit. i've got b and c and de ande and f and g and h. blah! coming down the road.

i'm like freaking out, and i"m tryingto figure out how the design is going to accommodate all these things. and the truth is that if we accept thefact that we don't actually quite know what the product's going to need tolook like until we've put in front of a customer, then do we really knowthat we need all those tasks yet? or are we kind of fooling ourselves? >> so if you really haveall those ideas, great. put them in a notebook or aspreadsheet or something like that. but i advise startups tokeep a work-in-progress limit

on the to-do column, too. that's an absolute maximum,i would say, how much you can get done in one or two weeks. so it doesn't even have to be that many. >> that way you are justhyper-focused on this is what i'm doing,getting done this week. or maybe these two weeks, right? and nothing else is gettingin your way, and you're just making sure that you'regetting that out there.

and especially as you start addingnew team members, this really helps. a lot of people like to do thisin software, which you can. but it's even better if youall can be in the same space and just put it up on a wall. it's just really visible,and everyone can just see it, and see what's most important. >> so ok, that's how you'refiguring out what to do. as you're doing it,you want to be thinking about what's the minimum viable design?

or in agile, we actuallyhave something called emergent design, which is the same idea. so have you guys heard ofemergent design before? ok. >> s-- actually, i'm tryingto remember where-- ok. so the idea of a merchantdesign is rather than coming up with this big, upfrontdesign and saying i'm going to spend a month figuring outthe right architecture what components go where and everything, let mejust design enough for the features

that i know i'm puttingin this first release. and nothing else-- or the featuresthat i'm doing this week, even. >> and then only as i need new featuresdo i figure out the design for those. you're not figuring out design upfront. i think in reality, it's not thison-off switch or this toggle. i think it's more of aspectrum of where you've fall on the certainty to uncertainty. and so if in a startup up, or ifyou're building something that's never been built before, you're prettyfar over on the uncertainty curve

here, right? >> and if you think about it interms of the business plan-- like, we talked about the singlebiggest predictor of failure is sticking to theinitial business plan. if you do this bigupfront business plan, and you say i'm just going to blindlyfollow that and not do anything. but you're just going to fail, right? because there was too much uncertainty. and i feel like thesame is true for design.

>> sorry, so instead of doinga big upfront business plan, you would do a very lightweight business model canvas, which you might have heard of. it's like a one-pager,just getting my ideas out. it's not that you don'tthink about it at all. it's good to think about it at first. but just get it something reallyflexible out there-- just one page. and then, as you go, kind ofemerge that plan over time as you learn from customers,and you can adapt to them.

>> and so then the samething is true for design. you can do a big,upfront design, but that doesn't make sense ifthere's a lot of uncertainty. a lot of people would argue there'snever that much certainty in software, even if you're not doing in startup. so you never want to do thatbig of an upfront design. but i feel like thelevel of design is going to vary based on how muchcertainty or uncertainty there is. and so if you have no freaking clueand you're just throwing something out

there like a landingpage, obviously, you're not going to go take the timeto architect a whole system. that's ridiculous, right? so you don't need any upfront design. a lot of times, the first versionyou put out of software for a startup just gets thrown away. and so a lot of times, eventhough i might say this, you can just kind ofhack something together. it's probably going to be thrown away.

but again, use that just-in-timeidea for design as well. that ok, you know what? this is actually some traction. some people are interested in this. i'm going to add some features on. now, i feel like i should be alittle bit smarter about the design. >> so the idea is as your designing,just keep this yagni in mind. you ain't gonna need it. don't design for thingsthat aren't there yet.

and the keep it simple,stupid principle-- do the simplest thingthat could possibly work. >> a lot of times, it's interesting,because as developers, we get taught to do thesereally complex designs. and we're taught that that's good. but it prevents us from beingflexible, and it can be really wasteful if we wind up going inat different directions. so agile kind of says, don't do that. just figure out what thesimplest way, the simplest code

that you can put in herethat's going to make it work. and then if i need to add ontoit, i can kind of fix that code up and readdress the design. >> so there's something called refactoringthat's really important when you do emergent design. and the idea with refactoring is--sorry, i'm going to back up a little. so if you're doing emergent design,you're only designing for the future that you have today. but that doesn't meanthat you're hacking.

that doesn't mean whenyou add another feature, you're just going tokind of duct tape it on. because that's going to giveyou this big ball of mud code that's going to beimpossible to maintain. the idea with the refactoring is ok, iknow i only need, say, twitter today, so i'm not going to do thisbig abstraction that says, oh, let me have this abstraction layerthat will work with any social media network that i could ever possiblythink of it in the future, because that takes time.

let me just-- the simplestthing that could possibly work is let me just makeit known with twitter, because that's all i need to do today. then tomorrow, we realize ok, we doneed to make this work with facebook. so refactoring would say, let me revisitthe design before i even add facebook, and say given that iknow that now i need to handle most multiple social networks,what would the optimal design look like? let me refactor the codeto handle that design,

and then i can plugfacebook functionality in. does that make sense? >> so a lot of people think, when theyhear something like emergent design, that you're doing less designor that you're just hacking. but the truth is you'reactually doing more design. it's sort of the samething with planning, right? you're actually doingmore planning-- it's just that instead ofdoing it all up front, you're doing it continuouslyas you go along.

>> so i think it's really greatthat you guys are taking cs50, because i hear this so many timesa day, i can't even tell you. people come up to me and they say,abby, i've got this great idea! all i need is a developer. and i kind of want to shoot myselfin the head when i hear that. >> because that kind ofassumes-- they'll come up, and they'll be like i havethe idea all figured out. i've got the business plan. i've got the design.

i just need a developer togo code it for me, right? and it's just assuming that they'vegot all the answers up front, and this person can justgo code it for them, and they're going to makea million dollars-- which just doesn't take intofact all the uncertainties. >> so if we kind of look at the stepsof development-- and i apologize. this is a little waterfall-y. but what typically happens is you figureout ok, this is what i want to code. you take some time todevelop it, test it.

quality assurance is testing it. and then once you've gotan entire release together, which might take a month. it makes two three months. then you release that out, right? >> but if we say, ok, let'sthink about how do we maximize the learning that happens here? because if we just go heads-down forthree months or a year or something and put some code outthere and it doesn't work,

then we're kind of screwed, right? so where does thelearning happen in here? some learning happenswhen we do requirements, because we're talking to customers, andwe're trying to understand about them. but the reality is thatmost learning doesn't happen until we actuallyput something in their hands and see how they use that. and so what this means isthat the time, the places that we spend the most time-- which isdevelopment and qa or testing-- there's

very little learning that happens. >> and so if we look at this andsay how can we maximize learning? or how can we reduce the timethat happens between learning? a great thing is continuous deployment. i don't know if you guys haveheard about continuous deployment. so the idea with that-- insteadof saying, ok, we're going to go. we have this releases at three months. we're going to buildall the features for it. and then only at theend of the release are

we are going actuallypush that into production and put it in front of users. >> the idea with continuous deploymentis taking that to the other extreme. so are you guys familiarwith the version control? so ideally, when you're workingon your code, every time you add some new functionality, you'regonna check it into version control. so if you screw somethingup, you can always go back. or you can see what changed,if something's broken. >> so the idea withcontinuous deployment is

as soon as you check somethinginto version control, it pushes the code to a staging server. it's going to run automated tests onit, make sure you didn't break anything. if you didn't break anything,it's going to push it right out from the production. >> so boom. it's in the hands of the customer. very different. but if we do this, if we're pushingthings out to the customer as fast

as possible, then we're gettingthe code into their hands. we can see how they'reworking with them, and we can really maximize learning. >> so i'm going to talk throughthis a little bit more, because i don't know if thatwas-- continuous deployment can be pretty extreme, right? and that can be pretty tough to do. so people, companies usually kind ofstart with continuous integration, and they work their way forward.

>> so continuous integration is thisconcept that's kind of the first part that i talked about. so the idea withcontinuous integration is you still have your release schedule. you're going to release every two weeksor every three months or whatever is. >> but every single timesomeone checks some code in, it does push the codeonto a staging server. the staging server lookslike production and it runs a series of automated testson them to make sure nothing broke.

if something broke, then it'sgoing to let everybody know hey, the build was broken. and everybody has stopand make sure it's fixed. >> so that way, you're always guaranteeingthat everything that you check in is keeping the code at an ok state. then when you're ready to release it inthe fraction, you realize everything. continuous delivery is sort of thenext step in this process, which is that every time you check-- it saysthe same thing-- every time we check something into version control, itpushes it to the staging server.

it runs the tests on it. >> but the culture is setas such that you always keep the code so that it can bepushed to production at any time. so with continuous integration,you might have a road map and say, we're only going to push itto production in three months. it doesn't really have to beready to be seen by a customer. but with this, you're sayingat any given point in time, you can be like yep, i'mhappy with this feature set, even though we're only two weeks in.

i'm going to go ahead andpush it out to the customer, and i know it's going to be ok. >> and so you might have somethinglike switches in your code that say for featuresthat are only half done. they're not actually visible. why is it visible to the customer yet? or something like that. but you always make surethat you don't have anything that's in this weird state, because itcan push out to production at any time.

>> and just once you're in, you've kindof gotten everybody used to that idea that you're always coding such thatit's ready to go out into production. then it's not so hard to moveto continuous deployment, which is that every single timeyou check something in, as long as the test passed,it goes out to production. does that kind of make sense? >> so it can still be reallyscary concept, but it's interesting to look at howsome companies are doing it. so etsy does a reallygood job with this.

if you're interested,they've got a blog that talks about how they do continuousdeployment, which is really awesome. they deploy to production upto 50 times a day-- right? which is crazy-- can you imagine ifyou go to the etsy website, 50 times in day, that site is beingupdated behind the scenes. >> and in 2011, they deployed 10,000times over the year with 100 engineers. and what they said is contrary towhat you might think-- like oh my god, that's terrible! the code, the site'sgoing to be a disaster.

they said actually, once you'redeploying that often, the system is so much more stable, they actuallycall it confidence as a service. because when we deploy, we'vealready done this 9,999 times. we got this. >> it also makes it so much easierfor them to experiment with things. so what they said before is theyused to release to production every two weeks or every month. and you guys mightimagine if you've ever got a deadline for a bigproject you're working on,

and you have this list of thingsthat you want to get done, and then as it getscloser to the deadline, the list starts shrinking a little bit. like well, maybe i don'treally need to do this. maybe i don't really need to do that. >> so that's what they said would happen. as they'd get closer to therelease-- and it was such a big deal. they had to get the release out on time. but they'd start paring away features.

and so they actually did lessfeatures, because they were only releasing every two weeks or a month. now that they'rereleasing so many times, it gives them this flexibilityto say, you know what? we want to build a newfeature, but we don't know if we should puta lot of time into it. let's put out this reallyminimum version of the feature and see if anyone even clicks onit, if anyone's even interested. if they are, then we can eitherpull it back and build it out,

or we can very quicklyadd new features to it. >> and so they said it just gave them somuch more flexibility to experiment. and so it's really interesting tosee bigger companies doing that. and at a startup, especially, where it'sso important to learn what's going on, it can be really effective. and then coming backto our kanban board. >> it's interesting. a lot of times, when peopledo a board like this, there's a lot of debate overwhat the done column means.

so ok, i'm working on a task. is it done when its code complete? is it done when someone's reviewedit and it feels like it's tested? is it done when it goesout into production? >> and so a lot of startupswill say, you know what? we're going to add a new column inhere, which is a learning column. it's not actually done until we'venot only put into production, we've put it in customers'hands-- but we've actually learned from how they've used it.

and what's really coolabout that is then, we get to incorporate thatlearning back into the cycle, and say based on whatwe've learned, based on what we se-- how we see them use it--we can figure out the next set to do. >> so those are the patterns that ihave seen for successful innovation across the startups thathave been successful. i was going to also talk alittle bit about resources that are available if you'reinterested in doing a startup ilab. but i can also stop it here, if youguys have questions about what i talked.

keep going? >> ok, so do you know about the ilab? ok, awesome. so the ilab has awesome resources. if you're looking to do astartup, we have anything from-- we do hacknights there. sometimes, we dohackathons, if you just want to go hack on cool projects with people. >> we have workshops.

we have classes that re for credit thatare kind of cool on entrepreneurship that are open to-- most ofthose are open to everybody. but we also have free workshopsa couple times a week, that we just bring inexperts from the industry to talk about anything-- fromtechnical concepts, to raising money, to how to do sales. >> anything that you wantaround startups, we have experts and residents whoare available to do one-on-ones. you can just sign up foroffice hours with them.

you don't even have to have a startup. just if you've got ideasand you want to balance-- get information orinsight from an expert on the same thing-- sales, financing. we get legal help. you could sign up for those there. we've always got stuff going on. >> so if you're interested,it's a really great resource. you can go to our site.

the newsletter is really awesome. i kind of usually hategetting email, but it's cool. we have so much going on, idon't even know what all it is. so if you sign up forthe newsletter, we'll let you know every week what's going on. you can also look at our calendarto see what events are coming up. >> and i am there to help if youwant to do a tech startup. >> so that's what i've got. >> [applause]

>> thank you.