In our discussion of polyatomic molecules so far we have talked about hybridization we have discussed sp sp2 and sp3 hybridization these orbitals are involved in linear trigonal planar and tetrahedral geometries respectively. A very important point about these orbitals is that these are examples of equivalent hybrid orbitals. But if you remember our very first discussion where we talked about Pauling's theory we had said that hybrid orbitals are formed by mixing of orbitals using mixing coefficients there is no guarantee that these coefficients have to be the same for all orbitals energy has to be conserved of course. So today in our concluding discussion of hybridization we are going to talk about non-equivalent hybrid orbitals and a good system where one has to use non-equivalent hybrid orbitals is our good old water in water molecule the bond angle is not 109.5 degrees as you would expect for this tetrahedral geometry it is not very difficult to see that you expect water in water you expect oxygen atom to be sp3 hybridized because it needs 4 hybrid orbitals 2 for the lone pair sorry 2 for the bond pair and 2 for the lone pair but the bond angle experimentally observed for water is 104.5 degrees. So of course the hybridization is not exactly sp3 it is something different it has to be something between sp3 and well it has to be something beyond sp3 because sp2 bond angle is 120 degrees sp is 180 degrees so as you go from sp2 to sp3 bond angle keeps on decreasing 180 to 120 to 109.5 what we see is that for water bond angle is even lesser than 109.5 degrees so p contribution in these orbitals must be a little more than 75% p contribution in the orbitals used to accommodate lone pairs that has to be a little less right so this is something that we understand now we will work out how much p contribution what is the expression again as we can hold the molecule in whatever way we want in order to make our life simpler we hold it like this we hold the molecule in YZ plane and we hold it in such a way that this HOH bond angle is exactly bisected by the Z axis so I have written this theta and theta which means bisection so 2 theta is 104.5 degrees theta would be 51.25 degrees sorry 52.25 degrees okay where are the lone pairs lone pairs are in the ZX plane the good thing about doing this is that if something is in the YZ plane some hybrid orbital then there is no contribution from PX is not it so one parameter less similarly for the lone pairs the hybrid orbitals are in ZX plane that means there is no contribution from the P orbital so one parameter less so that is how we are going to proceed so let us write like this you might remember how we had written the expression in the very first the very first expression we had written for hybrid orbitals involved cos theta and sin theta here also we write like that we say that the 2 hydrogen atoms are named HA and HB so the sp3 hybrid orbital used to form bond with A well this is not really sp3 notionally sp3 I am writing like that but might as well just have written phi A so phi A is given by what will be the contribution of PZ the angle between Z axis and this hybrid orbital is theta so contribution of PZ has to be proportional to cos theta then similarly the angle between Y axis and this orbital is 90 degrees minus theta so this coefficient has to be proportional to sin theta and for psi 2S I do not know what the coefficient is I will just write minus alpha and then the whole thing is multiplied by N because you have to normalize the orbital also similarly we can write an expression for phi B as well the only difference between phi A and phi B is that this orbital this hybrid orbital used for bonding with HB is towards the negative side of the Y axis so here we will have a negative sign so we write that negative sign explicitly and write minus sin theta psi 2PY but then why have I written a minus sign in front of alpha we do not have to it might as well as might as well be plus it does not matter but the good thing about writing minus sign for psi is this for psi 2S is this if you remember for 2S orbital there is a radial node is not it so the sine of wave function near the nucleus is let us say positive then it goes down to 0 at some point goes further down becomes negative here and then becomes 0 asymptotically after going from minimum so if I just write psi 2S then it is likely to imply that this red portion is plus and this blue portion is minus the problem is this now I am going to mix it with a P orbital and if you remember our discussion of why that nucleus is in the minor lobe of hybrid orbitals you can understand that the sine of the inner lobe is actually the sine of the minor lobe the sine of 2S wave function inside between the nucleus and the radial node is the sine of the minor lobe of the hybrid orbital so conventionally we like to keep the sine of the major lobe plus that is why we use a negative sign for the coefficient of 2S but it is not compulsory you might as well keep it positive it does not make any difference all right so now to determine the coefficient first relation that we will use is orthogonality between these two hybrid orbitals so this is the orthogonality relation as we know so we can write n square then in bra vector we write phi a sp3 in ket vector we write this and when we expand this what are we going to get we are going to get some of terms in principle you have 3 and you are multiplying by 3 you should get that many terms but it is not required because you know that when we open the bracket we are going to get terms like so suppose I take this and this what will I get cos square theta integral psi 2pz psi 2pz overall space now this is normalized so this is actually going to be 1 similarly when you take sin theta psi 2py and minus sin theta psi 2pi you are going to get minus sin square theta integral I will not even write it psi 2py in bra psi 2py in ket that is equal to 1 and then you get plus alpha square psi 2S in bra and psi 2S in ket vector however if you want to take this and this what will you get you get minus sin theta cos theta multiplied by integral psi 2pz psi 2py overall space and we know that they are orthogonal so this is going to be equal to 0 so we do not bother about cross terms like those we simply open the bracket and obtain this expression and this further simplifies to this so you get n square multiplied by cos square theta minus sin square theta plus alpha square is equal to n square cos 2 theta minus alpha square that is equal to 0 cos square theta minus sin square theta is cos 2 theta as we know all right now do we know cos 2 theta we do do we know n we do not but it does not matter because n cannot be 0 so we forget about that we equate cos 2 theta plus alpha square equal to 0 and we know that cos 2 theta is equal to 104.5 degrees so we might as well substitute the value of cos 2 theta here and find out the value of alpha is that clear you are going to get alpha square equal to minus cos 2 theta so when you substitute that this is what you will get alpha turns out to be 0.5 and we take the plus root because we have written the minus sign already and when you use the values of this sin theta and cos theta cos theta and sin remember what what theta is 2 theta is 104.5 degrees so theta is equal to simply 52.25 degrees so cosine and sine of 52.25 degrees are 0.61 and 0.79 respectively we have got this what is left to be done we have to find n how will I do it by using normalization we are going to normalize the orbital equate to 1 so you get an equation like this okay once again we do not have to bother about anything that involves a product of two different orbitals and we know that these orbitals are normalized so these all become equal to 1 and finally you get n to be equal to 0.89 I am going quickly here because it is very easy we have done so many things already we are running out of time so in case there is a problem please do not hesitate to contact us okay so n equal to 0.89 now it is done you just multiply whatever you had earlier sin theta cos theta 0.5 by 0.89 you get the final expression for these hybrid orbitals a and b and these are the final expressions what can we find from here we can find out the s coefficient and p coefficient sorry s contribution and p contribution so we can find out the s contribution and p contribution from the coefficients and that gives us percentage p character is 0.55 square plus 0.71 square this square plus this square that turns out to be 0.8 percentage s character is equal to 0.2 so 20 percent s character 80 percent p character so this hybridization is actually sp4 hybridization not really sp3 hybridization now if I just say it casually you might think where did that fourth p orbital come from the fourth p orbital did not come from anywhere this exponents here simply are proportional to the s character and p character that is all there are only three in fact the way I have written it here only two of the p orbitals have contributed but it does not matter the percentage p character percentage s character these are things that are reflected in what kind of hybridization it is so we have this interesting observation for that the hybrid orbitals used in the bonding pair to used for the bonding pair in water are actually sp4 hybridized what about the hybrid orbitals that are used for lone pair of course their hybridization has to be something like spn where n is less than 3 yeah because average has to be sp3 there are 3p orbitals after all so for the lone pairs we can write the expressions once again like this d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 these are the coefficients we start with that then we remember that the lone the hybrid orbitals used for lone pairs they are actually in your xz plane xz plane means contribution well coefficient of this psi 2 pi is equal to 0 so d2 dx of course has to be equal to 0 this is a different perspective of showing the same thing what do we not know we do not know this capital 5 we do not know the angle so as we are saying d2 equal to d6 equal to 0 fine that is very simple what more can we do first of all let us write the expressions with d2 and d6 set to 0 this is what you get now you have d1 d3 d4 d5 d7 d8 now see it is not very difficult to understand that contribution of s has to be same for both these hybrid orbitals is not it remember the case of hybrid orbitals used for bonding pair contribution of s was same in both sp4 right contribution of p was also the same in this case what will happen is contribution of s has to be same contribution of pz has to be same contribution px has to be same that is what happened earlier also here the thing is that each of the p orbitals involved right makes equal contribution to the both to both the orbitals because they are symmetric look at this z axis look at the hybrid orbitals the contribution of pz here will be same as contribution of pz here look at the px orbitals the only difference is that contribution of px will be positive for lp1 contribution of px will be negative for lp1 but magnitude has to be same so we can write d8 equal to minus d4 d5 equal to d1 d3 equal to d7 so this is what this pair of equation becomes all right now the matter is not very difficult we have to find 1 2 3 coefficients and we have 2 equations how do you do it 3 coefficients 2 equations we can actually do it because we do not have 2 equations we have 4 equations remember we have already worked out the equations for the other hybrid orbitals that turned out to be sp4 now we have 3 unknowns and 4 equations no problem actually to start with we have 4 unknowns and 4 equations it is just that we have worked out one of them already now what will I get then total contribution of 2 pz has to be 1 so d1 square plus d1 square plus 0.55 square plus 0.55 square that is equal to 1 for 2s d3 square plus d3 square equal to 0.5 square plus 0.45 square plus 0.45 square equal to 1 for 2 px 2 d4 square plus 0 is equal to 1 all right that is very simple and from there you work out these d coefficients also I went very quickly here because I think this is very simple algebra which you can handle by yourself please let us know in case of any difficulty but to end this discussion what we observe is that in these hybrid orbitals used to accommodate the lone pair your percentage s character is 30 percent percentage p character is 70 percent or rather I am saying percentage twice that sounds little silly so s character is 30 percent p character is 70 percent so again this is not sp3 this is not sp4 this is s 2 point something okay if I normalize with respect to z what is 7 with respect to 3 7 by 3 right so I can say sp7 by 3 so p7 by 3 will be 2.3 or something like that right sp 2.3 something between sp2 and sp3 so what will the angle be please work it out yourself I will not work out but you can work out yourself what is the angle between the hybrid orbitals that accommodate the lone pair and this is a very pet question that we have so this is what it is if you now compare all the 4 orbitals together you will see that it makes perfect sense total contribution of psi p to z is equal to total contribution of psi 2 s is equal to total contribution of psi 2 p x is equal to total contribution of psi 2 p y everything individually is equal to 1 there is absolutely no problem what we have done is that we have used different contributions of these wave functions to construct hybrid orbitals that are suitable for accommodating the bond pair and lone pair right that is all we have done we have synthesized the hybrid orbitals according to the experimental result please do not put the card before the horse and think it is the other way round okay last point just to mention in the passing is that sp3 is not the only well sp the sp orbitals are the not on not the only orbitals that participate in hybridization you can have for example if you want octahedral if you want to explain octahedral geometry the hybridization used is sp3d2 you can have sp3d and so on and so forth you can have trigonal bipyramid sp3d and you can work out the coefficients exactly in the similar way as you have as we have done in our sp sp2 sp3 sp4 and sp2.3 hybrid orbitals


Thanks for joining the session today. Today, we are going to talk about zero trust. Zero trust has become one of the security or cybersecurity latest buzzword. So it's imperative to understand what zero trust is and what zero trust isn't. So without further delay, let me share my screen and start talking about what zero trust, especially in the cloud. When we are all talking about moving to the cloud. So before we deep dive into the topic, let me brief about myself. I'm Vandana Varma Segel. My day job is with one of the multinational companies as a product security architect. And apart from that, I root for pro bono work. I'm one of the global board of directors for OWASP. OWASP is open web application security project. Apart from that, I also root for diversity initiatives wherein I've trained over 4,000 women around the world on cybersecurity. And I run an organization called InfoSec Girls. I'm the president for InfoSec Girls. I also work with multiple other communities to bring diversity in cybersecurity. This is what we call it as a traditional security model. We assume all the good guys, all the good people are inside the castle and all the bad people are outside. It's like a castle, where in castle is protected by a lot of people outside and everything inside is all good. This approach lag, depth and breadth which we needed, especially in the dynamic digital world we are in. So the castle and moth model ensures cyber defenses against external threats, but no defense against the insider threats. The castle and moth model ensures cyber defense against the external threats, but there is no defense against the insider threats. Those who have access to the organization or internal network or have gained the privileges or internal access can actually steal the credentials. And how about if there is an admin whose credentials gets lost, what will happen? So anyone who's inside the network can move around in the internal network or in the organization network and can perform any task. This might look similar to you, especially when we all have a work done creating all these network diagrams, understanding the architecture, all the segregation between the firewalls. So under this particular trust model, it is assumed that a user's identity is never compromised and that we all are trusted or supposed to act responsibly. But can we do that? Can we trust everyone or anyone? So traditional network security model, it was all segregated by the different firewalls. There were different zones, especially contained by one or more firewalls. Every zone was like one or more firewalls. Each zone is granted some level of access, but that determines the network resources, access or permissions. So through this model, protection is given by building multiple lines of defenses where an attacker must go past, especially before getting into the network while possible insider threat are not taken into the consideration. So this trust model continued to be abused. The traditional CASL and MOT model of cybersecurity is no more the combat to modern cyber threats that we are dealing with all the APTs and whatnot we are dealing with nowadays. So the question arises, trust insiders, what about the threats which are caused by the insiders? Only one door, because we have, let's say if someone loses the credentials, anyone can come and access it. Is it practical? I don't think so. We should protect everything from outsider, but how about the cost of protecting non-critical information? It's a huge amount of money. So the current landscape has also changed. In the old model, network packet firewalls were there to protect and tightly control the network. All traffic could be traced back and can be marked as insider or outside traffic. But this has changed over the years. And especially when the workforce has changed, move outside, that right now we are all working from home. It's been so many months, we are all working from home. And we are all connecting to the network from outside. You're all dependent on some other technology which can connect us to the office network. So especially when we talk about business trips, we are all remote, like we are right now. So how can actually internal network can be protected? Or how can organization be protected? And especially when we say, as today's network is different, privileged access not only covers the infrastructure, databases and network devices, but is extended to cloud environments as well. We are all talking about hybrid environments, multi-cloud environments, some sort of managing SaaS environments. So how should we handle all of those things? It is also includes big data projects. It must be automated for DevOps. And it now needs to cover hundreds of containers or microservices to represent what used to be a single server. So you can see that everything has modified. Everything has changed. And as I said, on top of this, we now live in a world of advanced persistent threats or APTs that create a growing and changing risk to the organizations, financial assets, intellectual property, and reputation the most of all, expanding access and obtaining credentials. It's an essential part of most APTs. Talk about 80% of the steps happen or data breach happens because of privileged access abuse or credentials abuse. So access has become a kind of a crown jewel for any organization over the years. Let's talk about some breach statistics. And when we are spending so much money on the security products each year or creating or setting up the security team in our organization, but we're still actually less secure. Xerotrass provides a better framework to look at the cybersecurity and rethink the way we are doing security. As per cybersecurity ventures, the cybersecurity cost, which was $3 trillion, that was in 2015, will now be $6 trillion in 2021 or 2021, or maybe more, average cost of a data breach would be 3.62 million, that's a huge number. And that's quoted by Ponemon Research Institute. And there's a new research that has come up recently. Now, as I said, there's another research by Forester, which estimate that 80% of the data breaches which happen because of privileged access abuse. That's a good number. That's a huge, huge number. So these figures come despite of organization spending a lot on the cybersecurity. And there are more and more efforts that are going in the cybersecurity or securing the organization. But the worry some picture comes is when we talk about that there is an organization which has breached once, but then that happens not just once, but multiple times. We are spending more money, but we are becoming less secure. How come that's happening? We're spending money on tools, people and whatnot. But the point comes is, are we spending the money on the right things or the right kind of a framework? Because I wouldn't say that what we were doing earlier was wrong or right, but I would say, my point is that every year there's something new that is coming up. Not just every year, every month, every day is something new that is coming up. We have to tackle that and we have to make sure our organization is secure. No organization is ever 100% secure, but we can take baby steps towards it. So I have some questions for you. When we talk about client, do we say that client is secure? Are the people, the users are secure? No, they're not. We've seen that. How about a server? Can we say that the server is secure? No. How about the whole network? Can we just depend on that? What do you say? We're all working remote. So are we dependent on network and can we just trust it? No, so if we don't do that, so simply don't trust and what shall we do? So if we have to trust, what should we verify? It's like trust but verify, but is it safe to say that trust but verify? So here, if zero trust sounds similar to you or familiar to you, it's because zero trust has been around for a while, but it's really hitting the nail right now or hitting the rhythm right now. The old model was, oh, you are in the network? We're going to trust you. The new model says, never trust and always verify. So this actually flips the mantra from trust but verify to never trust and always verify. It says, trust no one, not even the users behind the firewall. While we're talking about zero trust, let's learn about how it all came into picture. So over the years, security models have mature or have transitions. Many of us have our first thing, access control list. Then came role-based access control which still exists in some form. And then came principles of least privilege and especially it was at all rage. But the problem with our backwards or role-based access control work and even subsequently with least privilege as well was actually it just allowed all the subjects to be assigned multiple roles and multiple permissions which eventually losing to a point wherein it defeated the purpose it was meant for or intended the control it was meant for. And when we talk about introduction to cloud and diverse SaaS offerings, especially for our core applications, how are we going to implement and manage this effectively? If as an admin, I leave the organization today, how soon are we removing the accesses? Or let's say if I moved from one team to another, how soon are we managing those accesses? It's really, really hard. So those things are really important to be managed and security parameter has become a thing of the past, whatever we say, especially with the cloud adoption and advancement in technologies enterprise must assume that the environment is hostile. And that's how when we go to the public cloud, we have something in mind that we are putting our data into the public cloud and we have to take some ownership. We have to talk about the shared responsibility model that what's the cloud provider's responsibility, what's our responsibility. And that's the core tenant of Zero Trust. And it provides a better framework to look at cybersecurity and rethink the way we are working towards cybersecurity. It's essentially establish a model of trust verification and continuous evaluation of trust for further access and lateral moment. Now, when we say Zero Trust, how's the architecture? If you can see in the picture, the whole system or the supporting system in the whole architecture is called a control plane. And every component is referred to as a data plane, which has been coordinated and configured by the control plane. In Zero Trust, we first identify a protect surface. Now, what is a protect surface? It's made up of the organizations or network most critical and valuable data, assets, applications, services. So once we identify, now why we need to identify because it's unique to every organization. Not all organizations can have the same crown jewels. So we need to first identify those unique critical infrastructure. When we have identified that, we can identify how the traffic moves around the organization, understanding who the users are, which applications they're trying to access and how they are connecting to the network and enforcing the policies based on that. Once we have the basic understanding of interdependencies between data, application, users, services, we can put controls, especially when we say that these protect surface need the control as soon as possible. Creating a microparameter around it and we can create a microparameter by deploying a segmentation gateway, more commonly known as a next generation firewall, especially to ensure only known allowed traffic or legitimate applications have access to the protect surface. The segmentation gateway can actually provide us granular visibility into the traffic and enforce additional layer of security, especially layer seven security that we've been talking about. And people always talk about network segmentation, but application segmentation is also equally important. So we need to have application segmentation, application gateway segmentation or network segmentation in place. We continue to monitor and maintain in real time. Still, we are actually lacking a lot of things. First, we identify one perimeter, security. Move ahead. We need to go phase by phase. We cannot say that we are going to do everything at once. That's not quite humanly possible or even with machines possible. If everything takes time, we need to understand the environment, we need to start understanding what's happening in the organization, what assets do we have, what network do we have. So at the same time, implementing zero trust in an enterprise network is predicted on the organization's network itself. It establishes where boundaries can be placed and enforcing access controls to shield the specific applications, sensitive applications, such as which are on-premise applications, data centers, safeguarding it from unauthorized access and lateral movements that I mentioned. Most companies have applications and data spread across the multiple locations and don't have insight on who's accessing their application, how data is being stored. So to address all these things, companies have often access multiple resources, use multiple technologies around. And when cloud came into picture, everybody needed, like we need information stored secretly, save badly on the on-premise servers. And when we are moving to the cloud, a public cloud, private cloud, SaaS applications we have started using. So how shall we leverage all those things? We started talking about CASB. We started talking about Inbound Proxy, virtualized firewall, software-defined parameter. So this is a mix of technology which actually creates a segmentation security architecture where we can actually, which might be difficult to be sure what policies are in place or how data can be secure. So to succeed, we all need to have a single unified security architecture. This is our network where the users are accessing these applications. This is how data is flowing across the public cloud. These are my SaaS applications and this is how they are interacting. This is my private cloud and this is my data center. There are controls and limits who has access to what information, what assets, how they can use it. If we are dealing with any third-party vendor, how much access they will have, whether they will have read-only access, they'll have write access. Inspect the traffic and enforce security policies. The first thing we should categorize the data. Ultimately, security teams are focused on protecting the data, whatever we say. Where possible, data should be safe even when it leaves the organization, leave the device, app, infrastructure, network. The control that we have in place, data should be classified, labeled, encrypted, and access restrict based on all of these things. So what should we do in that case? We should first understand the current setup. Take a detailed look at what current data we have, what locations we have, do we have any regulations in place. And data classification also is important because it's allowed organizations to manage the data more effectively and accurately. The organizations might be facing issues, okay, my assets are lying all over there. But if you think about, there's a crown jewel and we have not marked it as a crown jewel. There's a low-hanging fruit and we don't know whether it's a low-hanging fruit or that might be a critical device for some of the teams. So it's very important to label it, whether it's restricted, internal, external, confidential, private, or what kind of data it is. Principles of lease privilege. And you must be hearing it from ages back, okay, we should have principles of lease privilege. Did we implement it? Lease privilege access rights is a fundamental principle of zero-stress security. Overly access of access is one of the key issues, causing the insider threat to become insider incidents. Zero-trust networks only allow access rights as and when necessary. Covering the access is no longer appropriate. So authenticating and verifying on all access is important. User access to cloud resources must be first authenticated. Certificate only based on authentication is a weak solution. As a certificate can be stolen. If I have your certificate, I can log into the environment. Another insecure approach would be insecure access method to jump host or bastion host. So what we can do is we can have multi-factor authentication which can be integrated with the LDAP or any other solution which can be there. And we can have single sign-on which can improve the authentication strength. However, authentication itself or alone is not sufficient. Users access, who's accessing the cloud resources must be authorized once we have authenticated. So the fine-grained control can be applied and less lateral moments of a user can make it even if someone try and access the network. We have fine-grained access. The access can be stopped then and there. User account with lease privileges. Especially if an employee leaves an organization. How about removing their access? It becomes very important to remove their access. With the principles of lease privilege an employee whose job is to enter the data center. The person can actually add or modify the records if the person's laptop is infected with a malware. What could go wrong? The system can actually install a malware on other systems, can infect the database. If the person has root credentials the infection can actually spread the system-wise and spread in the network. I'll give you an example which happened with me, where a person who's working with me, the person was a network person who was handling the firewalls. His job was to monitor and work on the firewall rules. So the person can monitor and make changes to the firewall or ACX. But suddenly the person moves to security team. Now the person's job is to manage the firewall logs which is like a quite different thing. Now the person who's managing the firewall logs suddenly gets a request. Can you please modify this access to me in the firewall? And the person does it. Ideally or practically, the person should have access to the network or network firewall? No. The person should not be even having access to it. Lead the modifying part. So it becomes important to have all those rights checked the regular intervals. You can have just in time privilege. If a user who's rarely needs access to the root credentials, reducing privileges, especially when they don't need it, we can use disposable credentials. We can enable a function. Okay, these are the six hours or six days. The person needs access to this environment and after six days, let's remove the access. So all of these things can be done. And we can actually stop the lateral moment of all those attacks that are happening. Might be spreading across the network. And this is one of the things that the primary thing that a pen tester can leverage. If all those privilege rights are not there, that can be exploited. And as a security researcher, if these things are not there, I am going to target that. If he's on off what the malicious actors might get access to. We can stop the attack because they will be only able to infect a certain zone, not the whole area. So if the public cloud we are using, we have to have principles of release privilege. We have to have a principle to build the cloud network which can result in isolated island of a lot of different networks. If one network is breached, we have other networks which can be safeguarded because it's impossible to gain access to those networks which can actually reduce the attack surface. Now tell me one thing. How many of you have multiple accounts, multiple passwords? I have. I have like tons and tons of username passwords, tons and tons of accounts on multiple websites. So what could go wrong? Where in earlier the identities were not defined. There were all internal applications. There were many passwords. But then in mid 90s identities, we started defining. We started uniquely identifying who has access to what. We started talking about single sign-on, password policies, role-based access controls. Then came an era where we started talking about how about having multi-factor authentication because we saw so many breaches with banks, with financial institutions and what not healthcare industry. We made sure that we have to have something in place which can reduce the privileges. So we came up with principles of release privilege. Then came a point that that's not necessary. How about understanding what could be the risk score? How are we handling the risk of an application? How are we handling the risk scores, adaptive access, then text-aware access, authorization, application-only access? And now we're talking about, let's go password less. We're talking about QR code scans and what not. Fido too. So all of those things are actually contributed towards maturing the organization IAM strategy. Now, what is context-aware security and why are we even talking about it? So if we look at 10 years back, MFO was just a pain. People would cringe and say that I don't want to use multi-factor authentication. We were all stick to the old world. Today, with all the modern solutions that we have, especially with cloud, can we just have a username and password? I have on one of the projects wherein the organization was using six digit characters. Should we use that small character password? No, when you talk about moving to cloud, we have to be sure that we are using a strong password. We have to have a strong password policy. We have to have multi-factor authentication to verify during login or password checkout, especially at the time of privilege elevation. Multi-factor authentication is a must have. We cannot counter that with anything. And passwords are not good enough. Let's face it, whatever we say. And even if we talk about the people who are listening to the stock, we can say that half of our passwords are the dictionary passwords. The passwords are somebody who you know. On months with add one, two, three, zero, six, or whatever. All of that is there. So the good news is multi-factor authentication is an easy way. We have, as I said, Fido 2. We have Google Authenticator. And many other indicators are available which can actually help us in securing our applications, securing our data. With context aware access, we can figure out where we are trying to access, which device we are using. If we're using a device for so long, there is a context that has been built for the device. And suddenly we change the device. The application should ask us for blocking or for asking for a step of authentication and saying that, okay, let's re-authenticate you. If I am in India right now, if I am in Bangalore, suddenly I log in from US, UK, or any other location. Am I supposed to log in? No, I'm not. Practically it's not possible. So what shall we do? Block the access. And adaptive access can be on applications and services. At the same time, when we have adaptive access, how about monitoring that? Which means enabling the right users or right user to have the right access to the right data for the right reason from the right location. So what I said, enabling the right users to have the right access to the right data for the right reason for the right location, which includes device, network, workload, and application, all at the same time. Now, when we say monitoring and logging, we can build identity-based network context like creating microparameters that are based on identifying the users. This is also known as zoning, where we can automatically monitor, continuously monitor and manage the data between the zones. Authentication and authorization can actually give us good view about these zones. Besides users and accounts, every device owned by the organization should be uniquely identifiable in a single device directly, wherein we can say, okay, these are the devices which are in use. If there's a fishy device, let's remove it from the network. And whosoever is trying to access it from a malicious device, let's block their access. And let's face it that hacking is inevitable. A fact will happen. The systems will get compromised. But we should have an idea what's our blast radius? What's our network? Then if we find that there's something malicious going on, we can stop it or prevent it to happen. Are the alerts being managed? How much automation we have in place to detect the incidents we're talking about orchestration, creating the playbooks relevant to our organization. So it becomes important to monitor and lock all the data which is going on in the network. Then comes how about we architect our own zero trust architecture, micro parameters. Once we know our data, our flow, what's happening in the network, we can create the optimal micro networks around each of them. Separate production data from depth and test can really, really help us in segmenting the whole network. We can have separate cloud accounts which can be a best practice for having isolation. What can we do? We can define the micro parameter, zones and segmentation, especially around sensitive data. We can enforce segmentation using physical and virtual security controls. Establish access based on these controls and micro parameter designs. We can include all the network traffic regardless of origin. But it has to be checked what is relevant. Now, another important aspect is policies and procedures. Identity governance and policies are very important but must be comprehended across the applications. We also have to take into the account the legacy applications or legacy applications that we have. Do we have support from them? How are we going to handle them when we talk about cloud or the advanced latest technologies that we have? Legacy apps can be run in virtualized environments or containers or can be segmented from the rest of the network. So that if something happens, if they are compromised, the malicious users cannot pivot and move literally to compromise the rest of the systems or infrastructure. So what we can do as part of implementing... Starting with categorizing data, with lease privilege, network management, segmentation, policies and procedures, all of this, that's there. But how should we take a step forward? Especially when we have remote access, we have the BYOD, we have default deny or so many other policies. How are we going to handle that? We can implement it wherein we identify what type of applications are there. And that's the fundamental step. If we know our infrastructure, we have categorized it. We know what's public, what's internal, what's confidential. We can define the zones. We can have microparameters come in and help us. We can suggest that, okay, let's create a chunk of data that represent that own microparameter. Then we can map the flows of the sensitive data. We can have, okay, this is the segment, which can be multi-directional, which can be bi-directional, or it shouldn't be accessible to the rest of the world, which can actually optimize our data flows. Then how about creating the boundaries? Once we all know this all micro network, we can design them. We can say, okay, this is what fits for the security. And this also take into consideration that, okay, we have a nice posture in our organization. We have a mature posture in our organization. We can continuously monitor and log the traffic. It can actually provide us the data analytics for malicious activities across the entire microparameter ecosystem. We can embrace automation, which might not be really possible because we don't know our network. So we can have a lot of automation, orchestration policies, procedures in place. So as I said, should we trust or don't trust? Zero trust is more of a perspective than a product. If someone says it's a product, sorry, that's not the case. And technology moves very fast. We can never think that we've just gotten to where we know everything about our organization. There has to be something which might be failing. So no single technology which is associated with zero trust architecture. There are multiple technologies, multiple processes which are there. And it also defines the maturity of our organization. It's a holistic approach to cybersecurity, which contains multiple principles and technologies. So can we say that identity is a security perimeter or a new security perimeter can see that now. So there are things that we've been doing. There are things that we can do, but we can take the baby steps. We can take the steps towards the zero trust journey. And the first step comes in when we start thinking about it, that what are things we can do? We can talk about verifying the users. We can have single sign-on, multi-factor authentication everywhere. We can have user behavior analysis. We can have risk scoring for access. We can validate the devices. It could be device and app management, device context. We can have endpoint privilege management properly. Then principles of lease privilege, which we can never remove. We can have granular role-based access, which can actually limit literal moments. Then how about learning from the architecture that we have and adapting to the new architecture using machine learning, AR? These are some of the references that I have looked through and research of some amazing cooperation. You can reach me on Twitter, LinkedIn. That's my email address. I'm very much reachable on all the platforms. If you have feedback, you want to have a discussion. And then we're all good. Thank you so much. This is Namaste from India. Thank you.


Yes sir baby this is the signing that so many Ravens fans have been waiting on all offseason long well not all offseason I mean we not even in the New League yet technically but the Ravens they made their first signing well resigning of this offseason and that is signing Lamar Jackson's cousin Trayvon Mullen so they get some depth at the cornerback position I'm not sure like I don't maybe they did this because they intended on signing him before the New League years started so he wouldn't be a free agent because I'm a little confused because I remember right at toward the end of the season maybe after the playoff game they claimed Trayvon Mullen on the waiver wire so they they claimed him so they had his rights or whatever even though I just I hate that term but anyway they had his rights but then they now they're resigning him so I I don't know so I just I was confused on how all of that work but maybe they just wanted a little advantage so they could resign him for this upcoming season before he became a free agent possibly sign somewhere I don't know but anyway they got them they got them now we'll see how things works out with his family member oh maybe they just wanted a little inside track the Lamar y'all better not be using Tray y'all not be y'all better not be using them like I'm gonna tell you that right now don't be using to try to get to Lamar we try to like a no don't do that man but anyway Ravens seriously on it with the cornerback situation they got some questions like Ravens got a lot of questions in a lot of different positions but certainly cornerback is one of them I was just on with a trusted bank with ttb Ravens media with McConaughey and Josh and you'll see that video probably over the next couple of days but we were talking about the cornerback position and Ravens they have some holes there they signed Kyle Fuller last year he obviously got hurt in the first game of the season but Marcus Peters he's also a free agent so there's an opening for the Ravens one of the Ravens to start in cornerback positions obviously Marlon Humphrey will be one of them but there's an opening for the other one so and it could go a lot of different ways they could be like alright Brandon Stevens we're not gonna resound Marcus Peters so you up or they could be like Marcus Peters we're gonna bring you back so you're up or they could be like Marcus Peters we're gonna bring you back but somebody else will be up or we're gonna draft somebody so they got options but they do have that hole there but bringing Trayvon Marlon in that does give you some depth and you've been a Raven fan for even just two weeks alone you know that the Ravens they need depth at the cornerback position because somehow some way every year they just get tested like crazy at cornerback I don't know what it is I don't know what goes on but cornerback is always an issue injuries are an issue for their cornerbacks I don't know what's been going on I don't know but it every year without fail they like last year they were so prepared they were so prepared they had Marlon Humphrey they had Marcus Peters they had Brandon Stevens they had Kyle Fuller so you have four people right there with NFL experience then on top of that they brought in they drafted Pepe Williams and they drafted Jalen Armand Davis so then you had two rookie so you extra prepared at the cornerback position but things just started falling apart guys got hurt and it just well y'all know how when we ain't got to relive it so yeah so for them to resigning Trayvon Marlon keeping him around it's a good move and you know it's not gonna be for any crazy amount of money it's not gonna be for any crazy amount of cap space which apparently the Ravens don't have much of right now they will get some alleviated tomorrow once the Chuck Clark trade becomes official they'll get a little bit more but Ravens pockets a little tight right now they're telling people a little I ain't got it so don't ask for it but shout out to Trayvon Marlon for getting the job early getting a little leg up on some of the possible competition at the cornerback position


We live in a time where science plays an important role in society. We also live in a time of scientific pluralism, and there are big divides and disagreements among scientific positions. At the same time, science is going into more fields, involving more researchers and using a larger repertoire of methodologies and methods than ever before. Furthermore, we live in a knowledge society where there is conflicting interest and conflicting knowledge, but where we are also dependent on a common reason. How can science be diverse and contribute to pluralism in society, and at the same time provide valid knowledge? In order to try to answer this question, I will take you on a journey through the history of European science and make a few stops on the way and look at how philosophers and scientists at different times have tried to understand what science is. In this first part of our journey, we will look at how science emerged in antiquity, how it was rediscovered in the medieval time, and how it gradually became an independent institution in society. Along the route, we will look at how science has been understood and conceptualized. The roots of today's science can be found in Greece, in the antiquity, at the Academy in Athens around 350 BC. The Academy was founded by Plato and was a school for higher education. It got its name from the place in which it was located, a place that was dedicated to Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom. One of the Academy's most prominent students was Aristotle. The works of Plato and Aristotle would become the most important references for science up to modern time. They were struggling with trying to understand this whole phenomenon of general concepts. Where are they? What are they? Are they real? Are they not? So that was not only a controversy but a discussion that has followed science and philosophy for 2,000 years. This discussion should turn about to be the first big controversy in science that still defines some of its most fundamental disagreements. The Renaissance painter Raphael captured this disagreement between Plato and Aristotle in his painting of the Academy, letting Plato point upwards towards the ideas, while Aristotle points downwards at nature. What was this disagreement about? And why is it so important? As we shall see, the disagreement would be a major divide in scientific reasoning up to modern times. There were differences, obviously.  There were horses and human beings and everything. There was an ideal type idea existing separately. Aristotle was very much in disagreement with this. He had different thoughts about the status of these forms or ideas. The disagreement escalated because it had also implications for how to do science. Plato believed in reasoning from ideas. Aristotle believed that in order to understand the forces that govern nature, we need to study nature itself. And for some reason, this disagreement led Aristotle to the Greek island of Lesvos. It's quite a coincidence why Aristotle ended up here in Caloney Bay. The story is told that it was a dispute with a nephew or Plato, Sposifus, when he took over the Academy in 347 BC. And the dispute was about methodology. If that is the case, it's actually the first big methodological dispute in science. He came here because his student, Theophrastus, lived in this island. Theophrastus was interested in botany. Here, Aristotle discovered biology because it was obvious of the fantastic wildlife and animal life and sea life that he discovered in this bay. And together they made works that became reference for these scientific fields for centuries after. Aristotle wrote several books where he classified political systems, literature, ethics and nature. So Aristotle was actually the first to systematically start to research the natural world in a scientific way, if you like. Plato believed that we can know how things logically have to be, even if we cannot observe them. Aristotle used his observation to put both the nature and the human world into categories that would reveal the natural order of things. And he described this eternal order. So, in spite of their science and differences, the antiquity had the world picture that everything was governed by divine forces. After antiquity, science decayed and it would go 1500 years before Aristotle was rediscovered in Europe. The migration period in Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire to the early Middle Ages was marked by profound changes. It was also a period when science was ignored, ideas forgotten and books simply locked away. After a long period of decay, there is a renewed interest in science in Europe and it manifests itself around 1150 with the establishment of the new European universities, first in Bologna and then in Oxford and here in Paris. Universities derive the name from a Latin concept of community of teachers and scholars. The universities grew out of clerical school that got permission to give higher education. In the Middle Ages that followed the Roman Empire, the church gradually built and rebuilt institutions in Europe. It was the church that controlled the teaching institutions where intellectual discussions took place. By this, the Catholic Church gained control over science. The church was sitting on all authority in Europe. At the church, in the church institutions, was the libraries, the learned people, the researchers and of course the theologians. And the church had it hand of all kind of knowledge. The church was in a dilemma. It supported development of knowledge but for natural reasons would not allow ideas that could compete with a Bible and their world picture. In this picture, the earth was in the center and everything was ranked according to its relation to God. However, after 1100, the church started to take a more liberal view on what was acceptable. Aristotle was again relevant. And the good intention behind this is that the church should care about nature and who was the expert on nature? It was of course Aristotle. One of the scholastics that influenced the way the Catholic Church adopted Aristotelian thinking was Thomas Aquinas. In the mid 1200, he came to the University of Paris, first as a student and later as a teacher. He found that the systematic logic of religious thinking could be combined with Aristotle's method of classification. He wrote, It is natural to a human being to attain to what is intelligible through objects of senses because our knowledge originates from senses. Now a discussion started about science but on the church's premises. One of the scholars that came to the University of Paris in the earlier period was Roger Bacon. He came here in 1237 and his work came to have a lasting influence on science. He developed a new perspective on method in order to study nature. Roger Bacon argued that we should open up the fields that Aristotle had investigated and look at them in a new and more systematic way. Not only observing, but also experimenting. He got interested in optics because he believed that we need instruments to help us look deeper into things like the microscope or wide-run things like the telescope. This inspired the new interest in the ideas of the antiquity which would define the next 300 years in Europe, the Renaissance. This new liberty to study things culminated when Nicholas Copernicus in 1443 published his book on the revolutions of the celestial spheres. Here he presented his heliocentric hypothesis that the earth circulates the sun and not the other way around. It was presented as a theory but would create a lot of controversies for the next 200 years. It inspired scholars to study the planetary system and thereby became the start of the scientific revolution. This was a revolution that would gradually question Aristotle's research. And as the Catholic Church had identified with Aristotle, it was on the defensive when Aristotle's findings were proven wrong. And now this Church's authority was shaken and people was bewildered because the Church had done something wrong and Aristotle was the reason. So now the people looked around for some new ground to stand on. They would increasingly find that ground in science. During the Renaissance, research activities had spread and was done in different places, not only in universities but at courts and in laboratories. Roger Bacon had discovered gunpowder. Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing machine in 1439, making books more available. Astronomers had redefined the earth's place in the universe and Christopher Columbus used new insight in navigation to sail to America in 1492. There was power in scientific knowledge. Kings, princes and wealthy families like the Medici's in Florence hired scientists in order to invent new things. Science and research was now spread all around Europe. The scientific revolution that happened during the Renaissance period had convinced people about the power of scientific discovery. And from there on, science gained a much more independent position in society as an independent institution that was allowed to develop on its own account. The new discoveries in science were made both by better techniques and instruments to observe things, but also through application of mathematics and logic. In a way, the great authorities leave the scene and the discovery of the universe becomes something that everyone can try to participate in. And that was in itself a kind of revolution. And this is a part of this change of perspective which came in the Renaissance when you put man, the human being, the ordinary human being in the center. Not God, not the authorities, but man, any man. What follows has been called the Enlightenment period. It's a period where people in general became more educated and more engaged in scientific discoveries. New branches of science appear and new discoveries are made in fields like biology and medicine. It is also a period where the universities develop and where both universities and science are struggling for independence. The Enlightenment period becomes a new start for science. The Renaissance had corrected many of Aristotle's observations. Now was the time to take reckoning both with the whole philosophy of knowledge that Aristotle and Plato had based their ideas on. And also with the Catholic and medieval worldview that had dominated Europe for a thousand years. The man that more than others would take that role was a French lawyer and mathematician, René Descartes. One of the main things he had to sort out was a relation between the physical world and metaphysics. Descartes used the metaphor of a tree to describe the relationship between metaphysics and physics. The roots of the tree is like metaphysics. We cannot see them but we can imagine how they are. The trunk of the tree is like physics. That is something we can observe. By this argument Descartes managed to make a divide between our mental existence, our mind, thoughts, religion and beliefs, and our physical existence. This dualism decoupled the study of the physical world from metaphysical speculation. For Descartes the physical world consisted of mechanics, medicine and ethics. But Descartes also strived to establish the foundation for metaphysics. So he was a very ambitious man and he was certain that he had found the answer. And the answer lay in one single axiom. There is one thing I can be sure of and that is I am thinking. Even if I am doubting everything I am still thinking because doubt is a kind of thinking. And because I am thinking I know that I exist and that is my basic axiom to try to understand myself and the world. The revolutionary with Descartes philosophy is that he puts man's thinking in the center of everything. Not God, not the world, not the divine. Science and philosophy is simply our human mind's attempt to understand the world. Science is human thinking about the world. Thus he gives science a new start. However, his dualism would become controversial up to our own time. In the early 17th century science had to be able to proceed without worrying about religion. So they had a division of the territory. Descartes gave God, the soul and immortality to religion and the physical world was the property of science. The dualism of Descartes would lead to a divide that would set the scene for the further development of science. We are about to take the train now from Paris to London. It's a journey that takes a little bit more than two hours. But in terms of philosophy we are moving from one world to the other. While continental philosophy continued to be concerned with what Descartes had discussed, namely the epistemological issues related to the relationship between metaphysics and physics in the British philosophy, one more or less neglected the whole metaphysical discussion and concentrated on the visible world that we can experience what we will call empiricism. The man that inspired empiricism in Britain was Francis Bacon. He was a student at Trinity College in Cambridge. In his book The New Scientific Method, published in 1620, he criticised Plato for his unfounded idea theory, an Aristotle for unfounded categorising. About Aristotle he wrote, he corrupted natural philosophy by logic. Thus he formed the world of categories. Bacon called for a new way of doing science purely based on observation. This new scientific method was called induction. The perspective of Francis Bacon was not that we study nature in order to understand nature as nature. We study nature from the perspective of being human being. We study it from the perspective of man. So Francis Bacon and René Descartes were both part of the Enlightenment period and shared this new vision of science as being man's thinking of the world. But Bacon did not believe that we can gain knowledge from thinking alone. Actually the right way of producing knowledge is to thoroughly study, investigate, experiment and so on and gradually build up knowledge about the phenomena where you get more and more verification of the truth of something. And through that science could produce truth and as he formulated also in this book, knowledge is power. Truths from knowledge becomes extremely powerful and that is also more or less the slogan of the Enlightenment period. But the disagreement about how to reason about knowledge would be a new, big methodological dispute in the history of science. The one between induction and deduction. And it was a dispute that would continue even after some of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by Isaac Newton in the second half of the 17th century. He became known for being able to give a mathematical description to phenomena. One was a basic equation of mechanics. And mechanics is a science about how things move when they are subject to forces. The other was a mathematical description of one of the most important forces of the world, namely gravitation. Modern science had tried to rid itself of metaphysics and superstition. One of the big questions that had occupied minds for thousands of years and led to speculations of divine forces was how we can explain the movement of things from planets to small objects. With Newton's discoveries, this problem seems to have been solved. So Newton shaped the science for hundreds of years to come. And he was the founder of physics, which was the valid physics until the 20th century. Still, in the debate on philosophy of science, the discussion was how did Newton manage to reach his conclusions? Did his discoveries represent induction or deduction? Philosophers at both sides of the canal would engage in this discussion. As science grew in importance throughout the Enlightenment period, one started to invest in universities in beautiful places like here in Cambridge and to build houses to celebrate knowledge and science like the Wren Library that we see in the background. While libraries in the medieval time often had been dark, hidden and sometimes forbidden to enter, the idea of the Wren Library was openness, space and light. Knowledge in the form of books should be accessible to everyone. The window on the south wall behind me is called the Cipriani window. It's a painted glass window designed by Gian Battista Cipriani in the 1770s. And it's very interesting because it shows the king who was on the throne at that time, George III. And behind George III is Britannia. Isaac Newton is being introduced to the king by the spirit of Trinity or the muse of the college. And Francis Bacon is sitting at the bottom right hand corner and he's recording the scene for posterity. Now, this is a bit of 17th century fun because both Newton and Bacon were dead by the time George III came to the throne. It's an allegory, it's an allegory of Trinity's greatness because at that time, and that came at the end of a period where the college had decided to memorialise all its great men, at that time Newton and Bacon were considered the greatest men the college had produced. So this shows Trinity's greatness in the 1770s. And it's a beautiful piece of work, painted glass, the colours change throughout the day because the light in the building is so wonderful. It wasn't a popular window in the 19th century because the Victorians didn't like allegory and they thought the window was a bit gaudy and brash and there were attempts to have it removed. But thankfully that didn't happen and we can still enjoy it today. It was a very typical aspect of science in the Enlightenment period that it celebrated its heroes. This is the death mask of Isaac Newton and this was made immediately after his death. It's a little bit gloomy, isn't it? They made it. They made it and they took people's hair. There are several versions of this dotted around. Even if the Enlightenment celebrated the new heroes, the philosophers and scientists, there was still no agreement among them of what constituted the right way of developing knowledge. The Scottish philosopher David Hume was one of the skeptics among the empiricists. Hume questioned the inductive method. He argued that we cannot know things for sure beyond our immediate observation. An example is the black swan. Even if all swans we observe are white, we cannot rule out the possibility of a black swan. When we form knowledge, we do it as much based on customs and habits as on solid individual reifications from sense impressions. Hume also argued that norms and habits were not necessarily deliberately chosen but had developed through evolution. Hume argued that there are two ways in which we can develop knowledge about the world and these two ways are very often referred to as Hume's fork. On the one hand we can have knowledge about ideas and on the other hand we can have knowledge about facts. Thereby, Hume rejected Descartes' idea that by doubting I can prove that I think and thereby deduct truth about the world from thinking. Hume's great achievement was to show that skepticism cannot be answered within a Cartesian framework. What he didn't do was get out of that framework and the crucial thing that he could not get out of was that when we perceive something we actually perceive objects and states of affairs in the world. At the continent one observed a debate in Britain and the man who tried to reconcile the disagreement between Descartes and Hume was Emmanuel Kant. He lived his whole life in Königsberg but published his articles through the University in Berlin and managed to be one of the western world's most central thinkers. Kant's achievement was to bring together different ideas that had dominated his time. He disagreed with Francis Bacon and the empiricists with their claim that all knowledge comes from impressions and experience. He thought that Descartes was right in pointing out the dualism. On the one hand the question where thinking comes from. On the other hand the question how we use thinking in practice. But he did not call the answer to the first of these questions metaphysics. Rather he defined it as the epistemology. Kant agreed that David Hume had pointed at something important. How do we get from specific knowledge to general knowledge? Kant argued that Isaac Newton could not have made his discovery based on induction. Time and space that are very central in Newton's theory does not come from induction. If we did not have a concept of time and space a priori we would not be able to perceive it. We have two capacities in our reason, Kant argued. We have the capacity to understand general and abstract things. And we have the capacity to understand specific things through sensing and experiencing. If you adopt the assumption all you can ever perceive are your own experiences then how do you ever get objective knowledge? How to get knowledge of things in themselves? And in particular how to get synthetic a priori truths? And his answer was what he called the Copernican Revolution. Instead of seeing our mind having to be responsible to reality think of reality as having to be responsible to our mind. And then you're off and running then you can get synthetic a priori propositions because what you're dealing with is the capacity of the mind to create representations that give us objective reality. How can there be objective reality? Well, underneath the appearances are things in themselves which we can never know but we have to suppose that they're there. Descartes, Hume and Kant would continue to be main references in philosophy of science in the centuries to come. And their disagreement would dominate the discussion in Europe of what science is. They represented three main directions in philosophical thinking that had impact on the three main discourses in three different countries Descartes and rationalism in France, Hume and empiricism in Britain and Kant and idealism in Germany. During the Enlightenment period society has developed and across Europe there is progress both in technology and in economic, political and social institutions. At the same time that Kant sits in Königsberg and think. At the University of Glasgow in Scotland, James Watt invents the steam engine and Adam Smith is sorting out the economic principles of industrial production. Scientific discovery started to materialize in technical and social improvements thus anticipating the industrial revolution. Kant celebrated Enlightenment and gave Frederick the Great credit for having introduced individual freedom, freedom of speech and the rule of law during his reign as king of Prussia. It is the free thinking among free persons that constituted Enlightenment. A good expression of the Enlightenment period is this panthenon building in Paris. This architecture is harmonic and symmetric and with references to Greek and Roman times which also was the case of the Enlightenment period. Also this was a building that originally was attended as a church but in 1791 during the French Revolution it was converted into a celebration hall for French thinkers and also you could say for French thinking. We have so far followed European science over more than 2000 years history. From its beginning in the antiquity through its revival in the Middle Ages and into the scientific revolution in the Renaissance. From then on we have seen how science developed as a more and more independent institution liberating itself from the dominance of the church questioning many of the ideas of antiquity opening new areas of research and trying to establish a philosophical foundation for scientific knowledge. After the French Revolution as we move into the 19th century science would increasingly be influencing society and the discussion about what is scientific knowledge would continue.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's CaseBrace.com, coming at you with 2023 Panini Black Football. Six box, half case, pick your team at number eight. There it is, and I think the person who did this previous, I think it was Jason, had kind of marked those eight. On there you can kind of see, mark eight against the light right there, you can kind of see it. Just to let you know that they're from the same case. Very big thanks to this group for making it happen. Thanks for grabbing your spot straight up, which I appreciate. Barry, you ended up with last spot mojo with the Titans. Nice, thank you. Yeah, we need to dig up some more soccer for the site, Duncan. That's a good idea. And there's the results of the number block right there. We did that in a different video. So if you're looking for the randomizing results for that. All right, good luck. It's gonna be a pretty quick break, but nothing sold out after this. We might be able to take our time a little bit with this break. Don't have to rush through it. Got a little NHL on the background. Yeah, you know what? That's on the list. I gotta watch that Beckham doc. It wasn't now, Duncan, if you saw it, was it just like a puff piece? You know, just like Beckham patting himself on the back? Or is this actually a decent look into Beck's career? There's Jared Goff. That's for the Lions, Alex with that one. Then we got Anthony Richardson. Futuristic piece of the jersey. Now the Colts are a number block team. So if you're curious, we go by that digit right there, number four. So that's going to go to Indianapolis four. Michael with that one, Michael Osia. Barrows just watched the Beckham doc. He said it was great. Got to see what he went through. So it wasn't a puff piece, which is good. We got Deuce Vaughn, 189 out of 199. Deuce's rookie auto going to Dallas. Dallas is a number block team. So it goes to that digit right there. Dallas nine, David Barrows. And there's my guy, Michael Mayer. Michael Jaspy. We got one out of 50 for the Notre Dame tight end now in Vegas. Jersey, silver and black right there. That's going to go to my Raiders, Ryan Gamsby, picking up the silver and black. Raider Joe Mojo getting a win yesterday against the Packers. I'll take it. Won't be too many of those. I don't appreciate everyone that my Raiders get. And there's Michael Parsons, 44 out of 75. That'll be for Dallas four. And that's going to be for Michael. So the Beck's piece, Duncan saying definitely not a puff piece. Tells the whole story warts and all. And what he went through after that World Cup. Yeah. Death threats.  I don't think he was redeemed until that, until that win against Greece, right? That one set piece play. Against Greece, was that a euros or was that a qualify? I forget what it was, but all were forgiven after that. Here is force field, Jameer Gibbs. I don't think I've seen too much of these. Kind of hard to see the black on black right there. I have to catch it perfectly in the studio light there. But that looks pretty cool. Is this a short print? I don't know. But Alex, that's for you. Alex Donnelly. We've got Keishan Bu. 125 out of 150 piece of the jersey going to the number block group. It'll be for New England five. Dave Barros. The autograph. Wow. Four out of five, Aaron Rodgers. Michael. Michael Rub picks up the Jets straight up and gets the A-Rot auto to five. Just marinating inside the second half here. Here we go. I mean, maybe last week, if we broke this the night, we broke number seven. This might have been an out of 10. A little more marinating turned into a five. Very nice. And Michael, you know this. All aboard the Big Hit Express. And another autograph. Three color, dual relic and autograph. Tyler Scott. 63 out of 99. Walter with the bears. That's right. Number two. Yeah, if you post it on eBay, Michael, you can put that little joke in there. Number two, the number of plays he had as a jet. But yeah, it'll be back next year. And there's a Dontavian Wicks. 35 out of 75. That'll be going to the Packers. That'll be for Ryan Lin. We've got Tyler Scott, rookie card for the bears. And we've got an 11 out of 99. Henden Hooker. This Hooker going to AD in Detroit. Henden Hooker, that is. And we've got, wow, nice capstones. Quad relic and autograph. Tara McLauren, 23 out of 50. You can kind of see that purple foil being reflected there. That looks really sharp. On-card auto as well for Joshua and the commanders.  Should be another auto, I think. Yeah, dual relic and autograph, Jaden Reed. For the Go Packo, 26 out of 99. Ryan Lin with the Packers. And then we've got 22 out of 35, Roquan Smith. Joshua with the Ravens. Halfway through this half case break. Roquan Smith for the Ravens. Joshua, not numbered. Got Ze Flowers triple relic, 24 out of 99. Components triple relic. We got to 10. Trey Lance, Niners edition. I feel like some people in Dallas call him for Trey Lance to get out there. That'll be for Steve Herrick and the Niners. That'll be one to hang on to, see how it turns out for him. Sam Laporta, nice. Three-color patch and silver ink autograph. 102 out of 199. This is a great break for the Lions. It's another one for Alex. And 8 out of 10, Davante Parker. Patriots number 8. That will be for Steve H. Yeah, I got to watch that documentary. Beckham documentary. How long is it? Is it multi-parts or is it just one long dock? Stetson Bennett, rookie card for the Rams. That's a non-numbered card for the number block group. So this Stetson Bennett will represent that randomizer. We got a Kenny Pickett. Nice, Starlight material. 21 out of 50. Two-color patch. That's going to be for Michael and his dealers. We got Quinn and William's midnight signatures. That looks pretty cool too. 83 out of 99. Perotius. That's going to go to Michael Ruh and the Jets. Then we got a Dalton Kincaid sizable signature. Nice. Big ol' patch, 26 out of 59. Buffalo! Jose with the bills. There you go, Jose. And we have 16 out of 35. Keishon Boote. Boote? Boote? Boote? Bootee? Don't know. But that'll go to the Patriots. That's going to be a number block team, so that goes to New England 6. It'll be for James L. All right, last box. All right, we got this cool looking insert here. Vanta. Insert CJ Stroud. Wow. I'm not sure if this is a short printer or not, but I feel like I've not seen too many of these. It'll be for Houston Scott with the Texans. Another Dalton Kincaid. To 25. Three color patch. That's going to be for Jose and the bills. All right, there should be a couple autos here. First one is 63 out of 199. Keon White for the Patriots. Patriots are a number block team. So I'll go to Patriots 3. That'll be for Scott Q. And then it's, wow, Bijan Robinson. Blacked out auto. 24 out of 50. The Black Jersey Silver Inc. auto. Nice. Nobody wanted Atlanta. That goes to Atlanta 4. And that's Michael Locio with Atlanta number 4. 24 out of 50. Nice. What a nice season he's having. And back here is Mack Jones. 22 out of 75. How safe is Mack Jones' job? Ah, thank you, David. Beckham Doc is four episodes and each is one hour long. Wow, that's pretty comprehensive. Might put in some work on that maybe tonight and over the next few days, maybe the weekend. Binge it over the weekend. All right, now there was one non-numbered card that Stetson Bennett. So let's gather everybody's names. Get some dice. Let's get a list and name on top. We'll get that Stetson Bennett after five. Two and a three, five times. One, two, three, four, and five. And after five, CVH, you'll get that Stetson Bennett card. A little consolation prize. There you go, ladies and gentlemen. What a nice break. Thanks for watching. Thanks for breaking with us. And I'll see you next time for the next football break. Bye-bye.


Our next speaker, Dr. Jerome Brooks, serves as the executive director of the Einrand Institute and the Einrand Center for Individual Rights. ARI is Washington's DC-based policy arm. He's a prominent advocate of objectivism, the philosophy of novelist Einrand. Dr. Brooks is a columnist at Forbes.com, contributing author to the anthology, Winning the Unwinnable War and Why Businessmen Need Philosophy. And he's co-author of A Neoconservatism, an obituary for an idea. He's also a weekly guest on front page hosted by PJTV. It's a center-right online television network broadcasting over the internet. He's also a popular speaker at universities, public forums, industry conferences, academic panels, community and professional groups. His recent talks encompass the moral foundations of capitalism and individual rights, including the right to not be your brother's health care keeper. It's great pleasure for me to welcome Dr. Brooke. Thank you, Aud. And thank you to the organizers of this event. I think what this country desperately needs is hundreds of these all over the country. It's always a pleasure for me to be on a panel and in a day full of talks of people really know what they're talking about. It's great. And people who know this industry, who know the issues so well. And what it makes so clear in my mind is the fact that what we're facing with health care today is pretty simple. You heard it today. This system is messed up, screwed up, too expensive, and so on because government intervention. And all the facts line up with this. There's no honest controversy here. And the solution is free markets. They work in computers. Why wouldn't they work in health care? And if you have any questions about the technicalities of how they work, these guys have the solution. This is easy stuff. And not only that, just add to that. The simple fact that our health care system is bankrupt. Medicaid, nobody's mentioned this yet. I'm an economist. I can say this. They're bankrupt. We cannot pay for them. There's no way you can pay for them. So by 2025, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and it's primarily Medicare, Medicaid, an interest on the debt, consume every dollar of revenue the federal government takes in. Every dollar of revenue. Most of that is Medicare, Medicaid. And those numbers are pretty optimistic. They assume the economy grows ninthly steadily at 3% plus percent for the next 14 years. They assume that revenue is steady and constant and growing nicely. And these systems are bankrupt. So government-involving in health care is driving us into bankruptcy. It doesn't work. Quality goes down. Obviously, this system is crazy. And yet, what's the solution to it? More. Let's do more of this. It's not bad enough. We need to pile on some more. And what happens to voices who say, no, there's a much easier, simpler, straightforward solution to this that actually increases quality, reduces cost, empowers individuals. There's not even a voice that nobody's interested in even listening to that. So why? And I know the number is 58% though, like Obama came. But when you actually get down into the numbers, yeah, they don't like Obama came, but they love Medicare and Medicaid. There's not 58% of Americans who don't want Medicare and Medicaid. They love those systems. And when you start actually digging and seeing what actually people like and don't like, the number of people who want free market in health care is minuscule. It's very, very small. And that's the number that's important at the end of the day. We need to appeal Obama came. But what we need is an alternative to it. And the challenge is going to be to get enough people to accept that alternative. So what's going on? This should be easy. This shouldn't be hard. Freedom works, free markets works, government controls, government spending, they don't work. And yet we want more and more of them. And my argument is that it's not about what works and what doesn't work. We won that argument a long time ago. Anybody who's an advocate for capitalism, we won the argument about free markets a long, long time ago, doesn't help us. One iota, we can consistently move towards more and more government involvement in almost every field out there. So something else is going on. Something as deeper is going on. Now I'd argue that the problem is much more fundamental. The problem is not about economics. It's not about economics of health care. It's not even about politics. We get the politicians we deserve. It's about us. And it's about something deep down in us. It's about something, essentially, that we have bought into. That we have bought into that undercuts any attempt to move in the right direction with regard to health care. And that is the issue of morality, of ethics, of what we believe is right. Because in the battle between what works and what's right, what's right will always win. People want to be good. People want to be moral. They want to do what's right, even if it costs them a few cents. It's not pocketbook issues that determine elections and policies long term. It's moral issues. It's where people believe morality lies. And I would advocate that the left has the moral high ground. We are bought into the moral agenda. We might not have bought into all the details and all the policies, but we bought them all agenda. And what is that agenda? That agenda says that need is a claim against all of us. That if somebody needs something, particularly if they need it, the perception is that they need it in order to live, then we have to provide it. And if we won't provide it voluntarily, then it's the job, it's the responsibility, it's the essential characteristic of government to have to come in and, as Art said, force us to provide that need. Because if you look a little bit differently at the history of government intervention and health care, need is everywhere. It was the poor and elderly people who needed better health care and tugged at our heart strings that got us Medicare and Medicaid. Who could say no? People supposedly were not getting the best health care they could get. And therefore, at the end of the day, were dying before they should be dying, if they hadn't gotten the best. And how can anybody stand by and say, no, that's life. That's reality. They need it. It's our moral responsibility to give it to them. After all, what were we all taught when we were this little? What is the moral purpose of life? What is our moral responsibility in life? What does it mean to be a good person? To be a good person means to, I was brought up in a good Jewish family. And I was taught from when I was very young to think of others first, put your interests last, taking care of other people. That was the essential characteristic of morality. So what my mother pounded it to be, be selfless. And the ultimate virtue is to sacrifice. Sacrifice means what? It means giving up something and expecting what in return. Nothing. And the more you give up, the better, more moral person you are. Bill Gates, when he makes his billions, is he a moral person? Is he a good person? Neutral to negative, right? But when he gives it away, is he a good person? Absolutely, he's wonderful. And you know what would guarantee sainthood to Bill Gates? Guaranteed. If he gave it all away and moved into a hut. If he could prove that he was suffering from pain. If he could prove that it was a true sacrifice. If he suffered for his fellow man, that would be virtue. That is our moral ideal. And we've almost all bought into this at some level or another. That is the moral ideal. That's what my mother taught me. She failed. And that's what your mother, I am sure, taught all of you. As long as we believe that, you know, that those children who don't quite qualify for Medicare, but their parents supposedly can't quite afford insurance, so we have to have something to fund them. And they're really not getting the kind of healthcare that is ideal. And how can you say no to children? I mean, nobody wants to say no to children, right? It's our moral responsibility. It's our moral duty. And who's on the other side of this? Well, on the other side of this, right, who are vilified and there's no accident why Obama switched from talking about healthcare to talking about insurance. Because as greedy and as wealthy as you doctors are, and you are, doing pretty well even today, right? And it's easy to vilify you because of that, right? Because you practice medicine and you make good living off of it. You're not doing it out of charity. You're not doing it out of sacrifice. You're not sacrificing. You're making a good living. And I commend you for that. But the culture doesn't. It's even easier to vilify whom? Insurance companies. What do they do? Right? They don't, doesn't seem like they give us anything. And yet they make a lot of money, right? Supposedly, they don't really, if you look at profit margins, the profit margins are not greater than anybody else's. But it seems that way, so it's easy to vilify them. And what are we vilifying there? We're vilifying the opposite in the small story, right? If the ideal is selflessness and self-sacrifice, what is vice? If virtue is selflessness, then vice is self-interest. Vice is profit. Vice is pursuing your own values. Vice is living your life for your own happiness. That is vice. That's why insurance companies are evil. They're bad.  And therefore it's easy to vilify you.  That is why the fact, the fact that it doesn't work, the fact that free markets do work, the history, all of this stuff doesn't, at the end of the day, doesn't actually convince people to change their minds. But what about that group over there? What about that individual over there? What about this insurance company that treated this guy? They're interested in those extreme cases where somebody's need was not fulfilled, where they feel bad because somebody did not get the best healthcare in the world that they could get, and they're always gonna be people like that. So that's why they ignore the bankruptcy. They ignore it doesn't work because it makes them feel good, makes them, and Democrats have them all high ground here, and Republicans will not challenge them. And you could see that in Paul Ryan's latest budget, right? Here's Paul Ryan. He's gonna cut government spending. Six trillion dollars, he told us, he cut, right? You know what that means? He means he cut six trillion dollars off of Obama's budget. But really, if you look at Ryan's budget, it's an increase, it's a dramatic increase. There are no real cuts in Ryan's budget. And is there a real challenge? Now there's a challenge to the way Medicare is distributed, but is there a real challenge to the existence of Medicare? No, they're afraid to challenge that. They won't mention it because that would be considered immoral, not impractical, they're practical solutions. It would be considered immoral, unethical, to challenge the existence of Medicare, Medicaid, you can lump in Social Security there as well. And yet, what do these systems depend on? They depend on this morality, and then they depend on the fact that some of us have to pay for others. They depend on the issue of force that are related to. That since it's your responsibility, your moral duty to help those in need, all the government is doing is helping you fulfill your moral responsibility. They're taking your money and giving it to them. That's just what you should've been doing anyway. This needs, if we're gonna change the direction of this country, if we have any hope for free medicine, if we have any hope for freedom in this country, this is the moral code that needs to be abandoned, it needs to be trashed. It is an anti-American, anti-human life, anti-individualism moral code. Your life is yours. It's yours politically, but much more importantly, it is yours morally. It is yours to live for yourself, to make the most out of your life. You wanna help people? Great, help people. But it has to be your choice. It has to be consistent with your values, with your life. Morality cannot, it is unimaginable to say that morality is about the denial of your life. Morality should be about how to make your life the best life that it can be. How to make your life the most flourishing, the most successful life that it can be. You are responsible for yourself, for your own life, for your actions, for your own choices. The role of government is to protect your ability to make those choices. The role of government is to prevent people from forcing you to make choices you don't wanna make. The role of government is to protect your individual rights. And we throw around rights all the time, and the left throws around rights all the time. But what do rights mean? What did the founders mean when they talked about individual rights? They meant freedom. They meant the absence of coercion, the absence of force. Right means you have a right to act based on your own rational decisions for your own purpose in life. This country was founded not on the principle of selflessness, not on the principle of self-sacrifice, not on the principle that you are your brother's keeper. This country was founded on the principle that you all own your own life. You're not part of a collective. You don't owe it to the government. You don't owe it to king. You don't owe it to the pope. It's yours. It was founded on the principle defined in, I think, the most important political document in the history of mankind, the Declaration of Independence that sets the context for the Constitution. That each one of us has an unalienable right to what? To our own lives. To our own liberty. And in the most self-interested political statement in human history, each one of us has an unable right to pursue our own happiness. Not the groups, not the collectives, not the needies, our own. In this sense, the battle for the future of healthcare, the battle of Obamacare and a free market alternative is at the heart of the battle for the future of the United States of America. It is at the heart of the battle between individualism and collectivism. And it is the heart of a battle between a morality of self-interest and a morality that says that your life is owed by others. We are all fighting. And this is why I think that the doctors here and the other panelists to do this fight for healthcare on a day-to-day basis of such heroes. I believe that battle for healthcare is the most important battle being fought today for the future of this country. Thank you all.


Amazing winter and Christmas ESL activity your students will love, what makes the perfect winter day? Tell your students to imagine the following, you wake up in your bed and look out the window when you see a brightly decorated Christmas tree. It's cold and even looks like snow is slowly falling from the sky. The perfect winter day. What do you want to do today? What are you going to eat for breakfast lunch and dinner?  Show a couple of photos to really visualize the scene and get some ideas flowing. Then give your students some time to write their story.  Thanks so much for watching, we are iTTT, the leading provider for TEFL and TESOL training courses. If you like this video, please subscribe by clicking the button down here, and click on any of the videos here on the left for more interesting teaching tips for getting certified to teach English abroad and online.