Most of the core EPTS leadership, while well intended, have little to no practical experience in operational event processing solutions (solving complex event processing problems).

I consider the “use case” exercise of EPTS a type of mis-information dissemination exercise, designed to confirm the “marketeers view” versus the correctly technical view related to processing complex events.

Case-in-point, consider all the “steam processing” acting as transaction engines in financial services; this has nothing (absolutely nothing) to do with forwarding the state of the art of processing complex events (events as electronic messages).

Sorry for the rant, but the “EPTS Leadership” has driven me away from their mission because they are simply concerned about “product marketing”, so EPTS should be called EPSG (Event Processing Sales Group).

That is not my interest area (sales and marketing software products), especially since I don’t work for a software company.

Actually, I have a number of complex event processing problems I am working with, but I do most of the coding in PHP, since the “CEP engines” are basically “fluff in a box”.

On the other hand, there are no true CEP use cases for most of the self-styled CEP products in the market today; these products are not technically advanced enough to detect complex events, only simple ones.  If they were useful, I would be using them!

First of all, I don’t find myself so happy, even thought I have realized my goal and dream of working in a foreign country in SE Asia.   One key reason is that I find “anti-knowledge” cultures really quite depressing, unless you are willing to just enjoy being a tourist and you shut your mind to all the mind-control and message manipulation that goes on in anti-knowledge cultures.

So, what is an “anti-knowledge culture” ?

Admittedly, I am writing this “from the hip” and intentionally not doing any research or Google searches before typing today; so I look forward to reading if my thoughts match any other person’s thoughts or ideas on this topic.  I am guessing that the term “anti-knowledge culture” already exists, but I really am going into this blindly at this point, so please bare with me as I climb out on a limb.

I’m defining this “on the fly, version 0.1″.

A “anti-knowledge culture” is a cultural system, often associated with a national identity, that has a core social-engine based on the suppression of knowledge so the “power groups” (most often the social and economic elites) can maintain the status-quo and, therefore, their social and economic and power base.

Anti-knowledge behavior occurs in myriad ways in most societies and nations.  However, in some societies “anti-knowledge” dominates knowledge, and the degree of domination defines the threshold, or some tipping point, that could label a society, group or nation as “anti-knowledge culture”.

For example, I have noticed that in some nations I have lived, we easily see:

• Strict media control by the government and the underlying elite.
• Criminalization of critical thinking and speech.
• An economic system based on taking advantage of the lack of local knowledge of another (for example a tourist).
• Brainwashing and mind control based on emotional belief systems, such as nationality or race, that promote unity and single-minded thinking and creating “outcasts” of those who challenge the system.
• False democratic values that only permit “democracy” as long as the people don’t actually try to change the system in a way that threatens the powerful elite that control the society.
• Failure to embrace change (or modernize) by “educating” citizens to worship legacy artifacts, such as art, history, language, and other fantasies from images of the national or social past.

This type of anti-knowledge culture seems to dominate many societies.   So much so, that I often find it depressing to see the minds of so many humans literally walking around as a type of victim of life long brainwashing.   In some societies, this type of anti-knowledge dominates the entire social fabric.

Will the Internet accelerate change in “anti-knowledge cultures” toward being “knowledge cultures”?

Or, it is possible that the Internet will be used to further effect anti-knowledge mind control?

Let’s explore these topics in a future post.

Human society is addicted to money, the most dangerous, perfectly legal, mind-drug on the planet. Wake up people! We all know that money is the root of all evil.   Try to stand-up for what is right instead of being a weak, sniveling, money addict.    Just speaking the truth puts us on the blacklist of the greedy addicts and their core ethic – “to exploit system weaknesses and loopholes at the expense of other is fine by us!”

This is a rant worth living, for the sake of a better society.  Stop the greed.  Control your addiction to profit and money.   Do not exploit others for your own gain.  Live with honor and ethics.

Whoops…. I did it again.    I ranted.

Just look at our once beautiful Gulf of Mexico.  Greed. Exploitation. Corruption. Short cuts. Unsafe  practices – it is the same song over and over again.   Our planet is very sick and the virus is the minds of the greedy, selfish people addicted to fame, money and profit.

What was not mentioned in the article was that the US and Japan have a rock solid constitution in place that strictly prohibits any infringement upon the human rights of expression and freedom of the press.   What they failed to mention in the Bangkok Post article is that the US and Japan consider the free flow of information to be a fundamental human right and cannot be restricted by the government under the dark veil of “national security”.

The article in the Bangkok Post also did not mention that in the US and Japan extreme abuses to the basic human right of expression and publication (like slander, libel, assault) are managed by a fair and balanced judiciary system that assumes their citizens are innocent before proven guilty in a court of law.  In addition, the article did not mention that in counties like Japan, nationalism is so frowned upon that people who fly the Japanese flag are somewhat considered “wackos”.  Japan learned a long time ago that ultra-nationalism can turn ugly very quickly.  Censorship against a nation’s own citizenship is inherently evil.  There is little more “undemocratic’ than a government that advocated censorship and a means of conflict resolution.

Censorship is not cybersecurity in the US, Japan and most other modern, civilized nations.

“The regulators and the major exchanges have drifted from their original duty: to run a market that gives small companies a way to raise capital and mom-and-pop stock buyers a way to invest for the future on fair terms. “

Colin Barr goes on to say:

“Instead, they have created a Frankenstein’s monster that churns away for the sake of volume itself, lining the pockets of nimble, technologically savvy hedge funds, giant investment banks and other players – at the expense of market stability.”

I have raised similar points about financial services a number times on this blog, but Colin Barr says it much better and more creatively.   So here I sit, in strong agreement with Colin Barr, award winning author for Fortune.com who calls the current market situation a “Frankenstien’s Monster” and Colin Clark, a financial services entrepreneur who has boycotted this blog, in part, because I sided with the New York Times in Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds.

So according to Colin Clark and the other software vendors and consultants who work in this area, if you agree with the NY Times and award winning authors of Fortune.com over people who work selling to financial services, we are not worthy of their “respect” anymore.  This leads me to believe that it must have been the same way in the Wild, Wild, West.  We can easily envision Jessee James and other gangs of gun slingers basically living according to the their moral code, “the person with the fastest gun wins” and “we respect no others.”

This is also similar to what many of us see living as an expatriate in developing countries. For example, in Thailand you can drive down the road in your car for 30 minutes and you will literally see 100s of traffic violations that would result in revocation of licenses in the US and other modern, developed countries.  When I asked my friend why people drive so bad he said that most drivers in Thailand consider that if they pull out in front of you, or cut you off, or zoom around from behind and overtake you by crossing the double yellow lines, or the myriad other violations we see on the streets and highways, that proves they are “better drivers than you” because they gain advantage over you by their superior driving “skills”.

Driving in most busy cities in Thailand is like a nightmare out of a horror movie.  Each day I get into my car I fully expected I will be hit or intimidated my some “skillful” cowboy.   In the past 30 days I have been hit twice and vandalized twice.   It is basically a non-stop nightmare on the roads.  It seems that trading in stocks is about the same for your “Average Joe”, as the “big boys” simply run over everyone with their “superior skills” and “daring abilities”.

The stock market has become a Frankenstein’s Monster, as Colin Barr wrote, because the technologically savvy hedge funds, giant investment banks and similar players have developed a similar attitude as the drivers on the roads in Thailand.  Basically it is dog-eat-dog and every-man-for-himself and if you lose, then that just proves how inferior you are.

When DARPA originally funded universities to advance the state-of-the-art in event processing they were seeking ways to level the playing field because of the deeply imbalanced situation in cyberspace.  The opportunists were at a significant advantage over the monitors, police and regulators.  This situation still exists today and we are seeing little progress.  Unfortunately, folks in financial services have taken the concepts that were developed to attempt to level the playing field and used them to further take advantage of others in the financial markets.

I agree completely with Colin Barr that the stock market has become a Frankenstein’s Monster.  The old saying used to be that “it is easier to steal money with a pen than a gun”.  In the age of computers and computer trading, perhaps it is time to revisit that old saying?

John Bates comments in reply to my post are on track, where he says:

“The point I was trying to make is that you can protect investors from some of the rapid movements that HFT can accentuate by having electronic safeguards — like real-time pre-trade risk and real-time market surveillance.”

In order to address this objectively, we need to look at this problem from an information security perspective.  In Infosec, there are three types of security controls:

1. Logical controls,
2. Physical controls,
3. Administrative controls.

John is advocating the application of logical controls (software technology) and cautioning against the use of administrative controls (government regulations).    This is the natural position of most technologists, by the way, and most CTOs would not be CTOs if they positioned otherwise. Their job is to advocate technological solutions, which John did.   There is an old saying, “Where you stand is based on where you sit”.   It is professionally correct to take positions based on where you sit (your position).  You can see John’s considerate reply here.

An excellent 2009 article in the New York Times, Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds, is quite revealing on the problems with HFT.   Below are a few direct quotes from that article:

“… high-frequency specialists clearly have an edge over typical traders, let alone ordinary investors. – NY Times“

“If an individual investor doesn’t have the means to keep up, they’re at a huge disadvantage. -NY Times”

“While markets are supposed to ensure transparency by showing orders to everyone simultaneously, a loophole in regulations allows marketplaces like Nasdaq to show traders some orders ahead of everyone else in exchange for a fee. – NY Times”

“… we’re moving toward a two-tiered marketplace of the high-frequency arbitrage guys, and everyone else. People want to know they have a legitimate shot at getting a fair deal. Otherwise, the markets lose their integrity. – NY Times”

Basically, the markets has already lost much of their integrity because of these “loopholes” that the NY Times has pointed out.  That is one of the major reasons we see these wild instabilities in the market place that have little do with market fundamentals.   I agree that market fundamentals are certainly influential, as Colin has reminded us, however, the “unfairness” to “normal investors” created by HFT is a discussion that is mostly unrelated to other problems we are seeing.  HFT is a serious problem that undermines market integrity.

I agree with John Bates that logical controls are important.  However, administrative controls are also very important, and generally more important.    There should be a regulatory framework that insures that technology cannot be used to put individual investors at a disadvantage.  Regulatory loopholes must be closed.  When a regulatory framework is in place that does not create unfair advantages to traders based on technology (i.e. who has the fastest gun wins the gunfight), it is certainly possible to use logical controls to help insure that these rules are followed, as John has pointed out.

The reason I responded directly to John Bate’s original post on this topic was not to single out John or Apama.  John is doing exactly what a CTO should do – advocating technology to solve problems.  All technology CTOs who are doing their jobs correctly must do this.  However, since I am not in the shoes of a CTO who has a job selling technology (logical controls), I think it is necessary to point out that administrative controls (regulations, laws, policies and other rules and guidelines) serve as the critical backbone of all security plans.  Having said that, if I was CTO I would also be pointing out the importance of administrative controls as well.  Perhaps that is why I am not a CTO!

As a side note:  I recall before leaving TIBCO Software, my boss told me that “software companies” have no place for independent consultants.

There is no doubt that the loopholes in the stock market regulatory framework creates a multi-tiered system that provides a distinct advantage to firms who invest in the technologies required to win the trading “arms race” game.   This undermines the integrity of the “investor’s market”.   The NY Times predicts that “markets will loss their integrity”.  Many of us believe that has already happened.

In closing, John is correct to point out that logical controls are an important part of the solution.  It is also just as important to point out the administrative controls are important.  In fact, if you look at most information security (and integrity is a part of information security) solutions, administrative controls are often more important than logical controls and they certainly form the framework by which to build the required logical controls.

First of all, the US economy (read individual investors) would be much better off if financial services firms (or anyone) were not permitted to use computers next to stock exchanges to seek split second “get rich quick” opportunities that the normal, traditional investor does not have.    The only “economy” that benefits are entities that participate in this type of activity and the technology firms selling the hardware and software to make “all the madness” possible.

Many technology companies make a living selling software that facilitates high frequency trading.  This is the same type of trading that continues to destabilize stock markets and injure investors.    But, investing in equities should mean investing in the companies, not electronic signals.  Unfortunately, high frequency trading is not investing, it is a type of electronic game where the winners are the companies with better technology and the losers are individual investors, retirees, mom-and-pop businesses, and everyone else.

The stock market was created for the purpose of public ownership in businesses, not to be a tit-for-tat game of “who has the best technology to exploit signals”.  What we are seeing in high frequency trading is an abomination of the principles of investment.  The poster’s closing statement on the topic is revealing:

“[we need]…. new approaches to markets surveillance across fragmented markets and real-time pre-trade risk management.“

Which simply translates to,

“We want to sell you more software.”

Let’s their be no mistake about it, companies working in the high frequency trading domain do not care about the economy, individual investors, or the principles of stock ownership. They care about making as much money as they can. They care about profit.

This is precisely the reason that I voluntarily stepped down from my active leadership role in CEP. CEP was originally based on the need to protect networks and computers. This is exactly what DARPA funded and academics like David Luckham were funded to research. Unfortunately in the marketplace, the term CEP was hijacked by software firms selling to financial services and has become a distasteful abomination of a once promising industry.

TIBCO covered Cyber Security – …real-time decision support has become increasingly critical to enterprise operations, establishing relationships between disparate events and the flood of seemingly unrelated data has often complicated cyber security solution development. … demonstrate, live, a jointly developed cyber security solution based on complex event processing and closed-loop systems analysis. This approach not only thwarts cyber attacks, it enables you to create actionable intelligence, specific courses of action, and situational awareness, culminating in rapid decision-making and attack mitigation.

Many of you may recall the wild instability in the US stock markets a few weeks ago. As I recall, Accenture stock gyrated from around $40 a share to 40 cents a share and back all within a short trading session. (Please correct me if my memory is incorrect). The root cause for all of this instability, of course, is high speed program trading, something many of us strongly condemn and demand strong government regulation.

So, amidst all the extremism, corporate greed and distorted media messages from Tacoma to Thailand, it is great to see one great Palo Alto company, TIBCO Software, continuing to focus on helping their customers process events with a focus outside of greed-driven financial services and fringe algorithmic trading.  Thank you TIBCO!

Maybe in my next post I’ll post “off topic” and offer my road map for improving the outlook for Thailand’s very unstable political future.  I don’t think anyone cares (what I have to say on this topic) and I know for certain the Thai government is not interested!

Regarding rules and event processing, I recently read a very good online article on robotics (in 2010). I don’t have the link handy, but in a nutshell, the author (a well respected professor at MIT, as I recall) discussed why robots cannot be trusted to do anything except the most simple and mundane tasks. The author cited a very good example of why rules processing in robotics leads to dangerous outcomes that can be harmful to humans. Unfortunately, I cannot elaborate (today) because my laptop (where I had bookmarked the article) crashed and I have not had time to repair it. My apologies.

In addition, I thought that working on so many Internet and computer projects makes Tim a dull boy, as they say, so I have been a bit busy taking some SCUBA classes this month. You can look on the top right of this page to see my latest dive. I will make 5 more dives in the next few days, completing my Advance Open Water training.

With so much negative energy in the world, I have decided to enjoy nature and the sea a bit more, resting my eyes from hours on the computer and resting my mind from all the constant extremism and hate that consumes all the various media outlets.

It is common sense to objective systems engineers (and well documented) that trying to manage large sets of rules are a disadvantage of rule-based systems. There are countless references available, and my operational experience with rules validates the advantages and disadvantages of rule-based systems.

Charles Young is a very intelligent person and a superior writer. He debates well and is elegant in speech. His impressive professional career revolves around advocating rule-based approaches and the vast bulk of his career perspective is shaped by his work with Microsoft and BizTalk.

I fully understand and empathize with anyone who primarily work in a narrow commercial segment, like Microsoft Biztalk, and find it natural and perfectly normal they will minimize the disadvantages of “their approach” and emphasize the advantages.

As a systems engineer, I am neutral on the topic and prefer to remain objective in systems engineering and architectural matters, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of all systems equally and without commercial bias. Hence, I respectfully abstain from the debate, out of apathy and a lack of passion for the topic.

Having said that, I do have my own personal biases based on my experiences, so please do not get the impression I believe otherwise!