Well good morning, let me add my welcome to this August group. My name is Michael Weber and I'm the director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. As Bill alluded to, research co-sponsors this important conference. It's my privilege now to introduce Commissioner William Ostendorf. William, Commissioner Ostendorf served on the commission since April 19, excuse me, not that long. Since April 2010, and is approaching four decades of dedicated public service. Now you know the relation to the 19. Before coming to the NRC, Commissioner Ostendorf served as the principal deputy administrator for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as holding senior positions at the National Academies and the House Armed Services Committee staff. And this service was preceded by a distinguished 26 year naval career, where he notably held command of a nuclear tech submarine as well as a submarine squadron. On the commission, he has served as a leader in numerous areas, including matters involving nuclear security and the post Fukushima regulatory actions. He earned a degree in systems engineering from the US Naval Academy and law degrees from the University of Texas and Georgetown University. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Commissioner Ostendorf. Thanks Mike, good morning. It's always a privilege to appear before this group. And I'd like to add my thanks to those of my colleagues, to the NRC staff who've arranged the RIC and have worked very hard over the last year to put this together. So Mike and Bill, I appreciate your work and that of your staffs and others supporting. I'd like to also personally thank the entire NRC staff for your professionalism and dedication over the past year. It is truly a privilege to work with you all. I'd also thank my colleagues here in the front row and the commission. You've already heard from Chairman Burns, Commissioner Speniky, tomorrow we'll hear from Commissioner Barron. We've heard insightful comments and perspectives from two, you'll hear a third set tomorrow from Jeff. And I just want to tell you personally it's been such a privilege and a pleasure to work with all of you. And I think this commission is just superb in how we've worked together and agreed to disagree at times, but more importantly, we've had respect for each other's views. And I really appreciate that from my colleagues here. Finally, I'd like to welcome Vic McCree to his first RIC as EDO. Vic has demonstrated his engaged, thoughtful leadership from day one. Thank you. Now, preparing remarks for today with my staff, I took a look back at my last five RIC speeches. And I need to correct one message from my first RIC speech delivered March 8th, 2011. In that address, I stated that serving on the Independent Regulatory Commission is not like being skipper of a nuclear attack submarine. I was wrong with respect to one central principle. I believe this correction to be important, so let me explain. Please bear with me for a few moments while I lay the foundation for this correction by returning to my experience in naval service. 1952, and I was not an active duty then, Mike. The US Navy destroyer Hobson collided with an aircraft carrier during night flight operations. There is extensive damage to the ships involved and heavy loss of life. The Wall Street Journal, in a frequently quoted discussion of the disaster in the following days, concluded the following, quote, on the sea there's a tradition older than the traditions of the country itself. It is the tradition that with responsibility goes authority, and with them both goes accountability. It is cruel, this accountability of good and well-intentioned men. But the choice is this, or an end to responsibility. For men will not long trust leaders who feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do. End of quote. That message was loud and clear to me as an ensign when I was commissioned in 1976. It was reinforced and amplified as I assumed positions of greater responsibility in the six submarines in which I served. I was privileged to serve as commanding officer of USS Norfolk SSM 714 for three years and three days, driving that submarine over 100,000 miles from 1992 to 1995. That principle of accountability was always in the forefront of my mind and actions as I led my ward room, cheese quarters, and crew. After that tour I worked hard as a subland prospective commanding officer instructor and submarine squadron commander to affirm and assert the vital importance of accountability to my submarine commanding officers. What is this to do with the RIC? So what is the question I need to make to my 2011 RIC speech? It's very simple. That key principle of accountability is not limited to the Navy or the military. Rather, and I say this in all seriousness, it is alive and well here at the NRC. And that is a good thing, my friends. I see it firsthand every day in the accountability individual commissioners demonstrate in their own decision making. Now the commission, as Commissioner Svendiki noted earlier, we do not always agree. But even the face of disagreement has been my direct observation that all of my colleagues have acted with a sense of accountability for their decision making. That is a very important observation. While my primary experience in the past six years has been with commission decision making, I would also observe that this principle and sense of accountability is clearly present among the NRC staff and the industry we regulate. So I'm quite pleased to assess the need to correct those 2011 RIC remarks to reflect my updated observations on accountability. And to add to Chairman Byrne's discussion of maintaining trust, I urge you to remember that, quote, men will not trust leaders who do not hold themselves accountable for their actions, unquote. Having corrected the record, and I've said, let me move on to my primary remarks. This is my sixth opportunity to address you at the RIC. I use that word opportunity intentionally. To me, the RIC is a unique form to consider how it can learn from the experience of an eye toward the future. I'll jump right into that message. This month, as you all know, marks the fifth anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. I spoke many times in the past about the agency's progress as we moved along in a somewhat step-by-step fashion. But now, all of the key regulatory decisions have been made, implementation by the industry is well underway. So I'm going to reflect on our response over the past five years by looking at the big picture. Today's my opportunity to use the NRC's post-Fukushima actions as a case study to highlight the strength of the NRC's decision-making framework and our principles of good regulation. Why? Because not only do I think that we've gotten to a good place, but I am proud of how we've gotten here. Let me ask for a show of hands to the audience of all those people, NRC, industry vendors who had anything to do with post-Fukushima decision-making or concerns. I note there's a lot of hands there, probably a lot of hands, and people watching on the webinar. Thank you. The NRC's decision-making on these matters not only affected all of you, it also impacted the lives of every person who could be affected by an accident at a nuclear power plant. I say that to stress the importance of our getting it right the first time. Along with my good friend and dear colleague, Commissioner Sfenike, I was here in March 2011. We both have been involved in all the commissions post-Fukushima decision-making. 2012 I visited Japan and toured Fukushima Daiichi with fellow commissioner and good friend Bill Magwood. I had a follow-up visit to Japan in 2014. I think I have a fairly solid understanding of what took place there and why. We have thoroughly studied the circumstances that led up to the accident and the lessons we have learned have guided the regulatory actions we, the NRC, have taken. Now in my opinion, the NRC should use these post-Fukushima decision-making lessons as a guide for the future. I am going to quickly cover three specific areas that are my most significant takeaways from how the NRC has fulfilled its responsibilities as a regulator in the context of Fukushima decision-making. First, the importance of establishing clear priorities. Second, the importance of integrated decision-making under our existing regulatory framework. And third, the importance of regulating the open. Let us first turn to the prioritization of post-Fukushima actions. The Tier 1, 2, and 3 risk-informed approach recommended by the staff and approved by the commission placed those regulatory actions with the greatest potential for safety improvement at the top of the list. Prioritization was absolutely essential because as the saying goes, if everything is important, nothing is. The Tier 1 actions, the most significant safety enhancements, are being realized today. I have visited 48 reactor sites in the United States that cover 77 of the 99 currently operating plants. I am struck by the significant plant modifications underway or in place today. This has not just been an exercise on paper. We aren't just writing reports. Each site has invested tens of millions of dollars into post-Fukushima upgrades. These upgrades have clearly resulted in tangible enhancements to plant safety. Licensees have seen significant reductions in the estimated core damage frequency for their plants as a result of these post-Fukushima upgrades. There is an obvious pride in the work that has been done by licensees and the NRC staff and the resulting safety improvements. The regulated industry has played a substantial role in the development of these safety requirements. At the NRC celebration of the 25th anniversary of the principles of good regulation in January of this year, former Commissioner Ken Rogers reminded me that while the NRC is a regulator, the industry must retain its sense of accountability for safety. I think that is happening here. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel for less safety significant Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations. On February 8th, the Commission approved a plan to close out those actions. I don't mean to imply that we're trying to hurry and close out these things so we can cross them off a list. Rather, it's important that we systematically work through our processes and disposition these actions professionally. Once we have the information we need, we must be a reliable regulator and promptly and decisively take action. We could have analyzed the Daiichi accident for years before taking any action. But in my view, that would not have been responsible regulation. I am personally gratified to confirm that the NRC captured the key lessons from the accident through our initial assessment by the near-term task force as supplemented by additional analysis by our Japan Lessons Learned Directorate and Fukushima Steering Committee. I have not seen information from further studies that cause and de-questions the actions we have taken in the United States. Let us now turn to the second key lesson, the importance of integrated decision-making under our existing regulatory framework. I'll offer a few examples to illustrate how we used smart decision-making within our existing regulatory framework to disposition post-Fukushima actions. But before I do that, I want to quickly go through and talk about a topic that the Chairman discussed, how safe is safe enough? What standard does the NRC Commission use? That standard comes from the Atomic Energy Act. We are required to ensure that our licensees provide adequate protection of public health and safety. If we determine that something is needed to ensure adequate protection, we will impose a requirement without regard to cost. On the other hand, if we determine that a requirement is not necessary for adequate protection, but that it would provide a substantial increase in safety, then we only impose that requirement if it passes a cost-benefit analysis. We have codified that requirement in the back-fit rule. One example of those concepts is illustrated by the topic of reliable hard events. In 2012, the Commission issued an order for reliable hard events, a boiling-water reactors with Mark I and Mark II containment, as a matter of adequate protection. The NRC staff subsequently evaluated whether we should require that such events also be, quote, severe accident, unquote, capable. Accounting for uncertainties regarding the frequency of a severe accident, the staff determined that severe accident capability would provide a substantial safety benefit that was cost-justified. The Commission agreed with the staff's assessment, and in 2013 rescinded the original order and issued another, which required reliable and severe accident-capable events. That is one area where safety improvement passed the cost-benefit back-fit test. There have been others that haven't. The fact that some of the proposed improvements did not get adopted should not be viewed as a problem. Another highly visible example is our ongoing mitigation of beyond-design basis event rulemaking. In 2012, within a year of the accident in Japan, we issued our initial orders. We were then able to step back and take a deep breath. We realized that we, the regulator, the industry, and the public would be better served if we integrated a number of task force recommendations into rulemaking to address the whole spectrum of beyond-design basis events. I thank Mike Johnson and his team for their efforts in this area. Because of this integration, we have had a better level of protection, because we have brought all these things together into one discussion, one dialogue, one consideration. This rulemaking provides us with that comprehensive integrated suite of safety enhancements. As Vic McCree showed earlier in the slides today, it integrates six of the near-term task force recommendations, including enhanced mitigation capability for station blackout events, spent fuel pool instrumentation, on-site emergency response capabilities, and emergency preparedness. This rulemaking, in my opinion, represents a major step forward. The consolidation was an efficient strategy given the interdependent and interrelated safety issues involved. Initially, a number of the key safety enhancements were realized through licensee implementation of the 2012 NRC orders. The mitigation of beyond-design basis events rulemaking now codifies those requirements and makes them generally applicable to future licensees in addition to current licensees. I approved publication of the proposed rule with one exception which I'll now briefly address. I disapproved the staff's proposal to impose requirements for severe accident management guidelines for SAMGs. The staff's regulatory analysis found that SAMGs would have a small safety benefit. The staff cited what we call defense in depth that would be gained from requiring SAMGs, but was unable to quantify a benefit that would outweigh the cost of requiring SAMGs. The commission concluded that requiring SAMGs was not cost-justified. This rulemaking serves as an example of how the NRC's regulatory framework provided stability and reliability throughout the decision-making process. The concepts of adequate protection of public health and safety, as well as our back-fit rule, are vitally important regulatory principles. I'll have one final example to share on our decision-making. In keeping with NRC's principle of efficiency, regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve. This principle goes on to state where several effective alternatives are available. The option that minimizes the use of resources should be adopted. Last summer, the staff asked for commission approval to publish a draft regulatory basis for containment protection and release reduction rulemaking. I voted not to approve the staff's proposal. In that case, the proposed rule would have codified orders that are already in place. And the orders have the same legal and enforcement effect as a new rule would. Furthermore, we do not expect any new applicants for Mark 1 and Mark 2 containment to come before the commission. So there would be no safety benefit to offset the cost of the rulemaking. The commission had also previously directed outreach for state with stakeholders when it developed these orders. So rulemaking would not likely have provided new information for the staff and the commission to consider. I think we made a smart decision. I'll now turn to the final sniffing regulatory lesson learned from the post-Fubushima experience. The importance of regulating the open. This has a direct nexus from my previous discussion of the concept of accountability. Early on in the process, the commission directed the staff to engage in diversity of stakeholders throughout the development of the technical bases in rulemaking. As such, there has been a high level of stakeholder engagement throughout the staff's process of developing recommendations for the commission. To date, there have been about 300 public meetings, 300 public meetings convened by the NRC on post-Fubushima regulatory actions. We've maintained openness because nuclear regulation is the public's business. It must be conducted openly and candidly. The commission's decisions have also been open and transparent. I'll spend a brief moment discussing how the commission itself, whether five-person or a four-person commission, makes decisions. For the Fukushima actions, we relied on the task force and director to provide us with recommendations. There have been recommendations for orders, for proposed rules, and recommendations to stop action on some early recommendations after more complete technical analysis by our staff. Those staff recommendations came to the commission in formal papers that are publicly available. Most of the time, the staff's recommendations are public as soon as they come to the commission. We don't wait until the commission has made a decision to release them. So you can see what the staff recommends, and later, whether the commission approves or disapproves the recommendation in whole or in part. The commission reviews the staff's recommendations and holds public meetings when they're appropriate. Each commissioner often seeks briefings from the staff, experts, who work in these recommendations. The commission uses a process called notation voting, in which each commissioner writes a vote that not only records whether he or she approves the recommendation, but also explains why. In these votes, we might also include additional direction to the staff on particular items. After all the commissioners have voted, the NRC's office of the secretary goes through the votes, tallies them, and puts together what we call a draft staff requirements memorandum. That document captures the elements of the staff's recommendation that were approved or not approved by each commissioner, and also includes each commissioner's additional comments. The commissioners then vote on the draft staff requirements memorandum. It takes the majority of the commission to include each additional direction or to change a policy. Now we may go through a few rounds of voting before the final product has the majority, and our voting process also gives our staff a chance to comment on the commission's direction and to raise any concerns they may have. I find that this formal structured open voting process is a real strength of the NRC in the commission in which I serve. You do not have to wonder how a commissioner weighed in on different issues. There is a clear public record of the basis for all of our votes, including the post Fukushima actions. By my count on Fukushima related actions alone, I have cast 25 separate votes, all of them on our website. That is how you can hold me accountable for my actions. I am proud this is how the NRC regulates. I will now close. I want to take a moment and thank my personal staff for their hard work and dedication. They are a tremendous group of people who take their work seriously, but they don't take themselves too seriously and they take care of each other. We enjoy an open and collaborative work environment, even though our professional football allegiances are wildly divergent. Two agnostics, two Steeler fans, two Patriot fans, and one extremely devoted Dallas Cowboy fan, that would be me. Team WCO, I thank you all. First to acknowledge my current team, Eric Benner, Tammy Bloomer, Amy Covage, Molly Marsh. Because this is my last rick, I'd like to also thank the staff who have worked for me since 2010. Ho Ni, Jason Zorn, Mike Franovich, Andrew Cook, John Tappert, Kimberly Sexton, Kathy Kanaitis, Greg Warnick, Jeanette Cuisenberry. Last but not least, Linda Hur and Sonny Bosen, who have been with me since my first day, April 1st of 2010. I'm most grateful for your support and friendship. I'll end on a personal note, I've had a few titles over the years, like many of you. I've been called Captain, Dad, Counsel, Administrator, Director, Commissioner, Hey You, Grandpa, by my two-year-old granddaughter, Dylan, and now I'll be going to another title. My term ends in June. I've accepted a position at the Naval Academy as a Distinguished Visiting Professor of National Security. I'll start teaching in August. I look forward to returning to my alma mater and sharing my experience with a new generation of naval officers. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time at the commission with my colleagues and with NRC staff. It's been a most rewarding experience professionally and personally. The NRC does really good and important work. And I've been proud to stand beside you the last six years. It's been a pleasure to work with you all. Thank you. Well, we have a few questions here, Commissioner. In reflecting on your federal service, what was most valuable during that service as a commissioner, as a member of the nuclear navy, in serving law, in Congress? I had to say my Navy experience.  I'm going to give you one quick sea story, but I think it relates to things that Vic is working on with his leadership team. That is safety culture. 1978 had been a recently qualified engineering officer watch on USS George Bancroft, SSBN 643 Gold Crew. During the watch, and I was probably like 23 years old at the time, our throttlement with main cooling pumps and slow speed. Some of you have been there in S5W plants. When we shifted rat to cooling pumps, the main cooling pumps to fast speed, the throttles got ahead of the pumps. And so we had a power to flow scram. I was shaking my boots as a newly qualified engineering officer watch, this was probably my third watch. Did a fast recovery start up. After watch, we had a post watch critique. And I thought the engineer and the commanding officer would come in and just really lay on me. And they didn't. They came in and said, let's have a critique in the ward room. Let's bring all the watch standards up forward. Let's see what happened. Let's discuss the facts of the incident. What were the root causes? As Commissioner Svendiki noted earlier. And let's make sure we understand what happened and why. And then we'll write Amarick over incident report and do some training. I was stunned by the openness and clarity of the critique that occurred now 38 years ago on George Bancroft. And as I started on five other submarines after that and I was engineering an old attack submarine and commanding officer submarine, I think that nuclear operating experience has served me very well. So that's been my highlight. Okay. Thank you. Along the same lines, do you have any regrets or unfinished tasks from your tenure as a commissioner at the NRC? No regrets. Not at all. I would say I am, and Chairman made this reference earlier, I'm disappointed as to where the country is on not having a geologic repository for high level waste. I think that that is a significant shortcoming of government. I don't think it's been handled quite frankly with enough urgency and objectivity. I'm very proud of the work the NRC staff has done here on this area. But I think elsewhere in government it's been a shortcoming, so that's what I would leave you with. Okay. Thank you. This commenter thanks you for your service and reflects on your many good comments today, balancing risk and regulation. And adds a question, do you think we have achieved the right balance on physical and cyber security programs? I'd say that, let me address this because I spent some time on security issues as a commissioner. I believe that our commercial nuclear facilities, whether it be power plants, fuel facilities, materials, licensees, I believe that the security posture is robust and comprehensive for physical security. In the cyber security arena, I know that licensees are still working on implementing all the milestones for the 2009 Cyber Security Rule. I think the rule itself is a good rule. I think our staff, led by, going back to when Jim Wiggins was here and then sir, Jim, Barry Westrick, Russ Feltz, Brian Holian, have worked hard to look at a more consequence-based approach for cyber security to risk inform those critical digital asset determinations in a positive way. I can't rule out there may not be need for further adjustment to the cyber rule as we go forward. Thank you. This questioner notes that reduced core damage frequency estimates are good news, but do they tell the whole story? It goes on to point out that the core damage frequency estimates at Fukushima did not anticipate what happened. How do we get the whole picture in probabilistic risk assessment? Or can we ever get the whole picture? That's a very thoughtful question. I thank the questioner who posed that. I acknowledge that core damage frequency by itself is not an adequate metric. But I would say that in the context of Fukushima, the work that we have directed for seismic and flooding hazard re-evaluations has been very significant. Much of that work is still continuing in certain areas. And I believe that when we look at the combination of seismic, flooding, station blackout, which is manifested in mitigation of beyond design basis event rulemaking, I think we'll be in a very solid position. This commenter notes that we've made great progress following the lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. However, in hindsight, was the near term task force broad scope and recommendations premature given the relative limited understanding of the real causes of the accident at the time the near term task force was conducted? You've had the benefit of reflecting on that in your service as a commissioner. I'll try to answer this the best I can. I saw Marty Virgilio earlier this morning and Marty was in Mike Johnson's position in the fall of 2011 when we were looking at Secchi 11-0-1-3-7, a very key vote that Commissioner Svendick and I voted on associate of the prioritization activities for the near term task force. I think the prioritization activities that were undergone by the staff under commission direction at time were appropriate, were the best fit for what we knew about Fukushima. I did not vote to support immediately going into the recommendation one looking at the overhaul of our regulatory framework. I'm afraid if we had looked at the overall framework first, we would just now maybe be getting some actions here in 2016. So I think in hindsight, I personally think we did the right thing to say let's go ahead and move forward with these tier one, tier two, and tier three action items and this hold off for any review of the framework is a separate distinct body of work. Thank you. What practical consequences do you see resulting from the Vienna Declaration on Nuclear Safety that came out of the diplomatic conference on the margins of the Convention on Nuclear Safety? I think based on discussions I've had with our international program staff, with Chairman Burns, with our State Department colleagues, I think we'll see hopefully renewed engagement by the international community and activities associated with the convention. And I think that's a real key message that everybody will hopefully rally around as a need for engagement participation in those activities. Okay. Shifting gears to small modular reactors, is the NRC fully prepared to meet the 42 month commitment in the schedule for SMR licensing? I believe we are. Now, I met with Mike Mayfield, Diane Jackson, Debbie Jackson, Jennifer Ewell in the last three weeks after I attended an advanced reactor summit that the Nuclear Infrastructure Council put on at Oak Ridge last month. I've discussed this at some length with Amy Cubbage and my personal staff. I believe that the NRC staff is ready to receive the new scale license application here at the end of this calendar year. I do believe the time period that our staff has advertised for processing a well put together application is 39 months. Okay. Keeping on the theme of SMRs, this question begins with Go Navy. There are a number of potential SMR vendors who say that they're completely designing out the severe accident like what happened at Fukushima. They range in megawatt level coolant type, fuel type, and even include nuclear fusion designs. What are your thoughts on how the vendors and the NRC staff should address this part of design certification reviews so as not to be too lax or too strict? When I was in Oak Ridge on February 11th, I had a chance to hear from maybe four to six different groups talking about different non-light water reactor technologies. So I'm going to answer this from the standpoint of SMRs and non-light water reactor technologies that are being discussed in the industry, vendors, and in different other organizations. And I'm going to go back to a comment that Victor McCreme made earlier today, and it's one that I've heard from Mike Johnson and Jennifer Ewell, is NRC staff's willingness to take a stepwise approach in the context of topical report by analogy and look at a discreet conceptual design proposal in a way that early on gives feedback to a prospective applicant. And we've seen this happen before in a very successful way in this agency. This agency had a lot of experience back in the 1990s with sodium pebble bed reactors and so forth. So I don't think that there's a key concern here. I think this commitment by the NRC staff to be willing to use a stepwise approach under our existing framework will get us there. All right. And one last question here on advanced reactors. This commenter is pleased to see the $5 million budget request off the fee base for advanced reactor preparations, but what is the $5 million for and is it enough? Well, it's two questions there. Certainly the $5 million is going to help our staff get up to speed in some of the technologies. It's going to allow us to conduct some outreach with other organizations working on advanced reactor technology development. And it will also help identify in certain areas any regulatory gaps we may have for a particular type of technology. So that's what money is supposed to go towards. As far as is the $5 million enough, I think it's a good start. I would not hopefully not see this as being a fiscal year 17 budget item, and then it disappear after that. I think we have to kind of build the case, walk before we run, deal this $5 million in a responsible good stewardship manner, and then look towards perhaps what might be appropriate for the future. All right. From your perspective as a commissioner, what is NRC's responsibility in educating the general public to understand the issues regarding nuclear safety and security? I think we have a significant responsibility. And I think the chairman and Victor both talked about this. I believe we try very hard to communicate to the public in terms that the public can understand what the risks are from nuclear facilities under different circumstances, etc. Bill Magrid and I put out a column in 2011 on this topic.  I think people are working very hard in this area. It's one where you've never finished the job. This need will always be there. But it's important for us to take the time and to have those tailored communications, I say tailored to the audience and the scientific literacy that's before us as an agency. Okay. You cited the value of cost benefit analysis to determine whether safety enhancements are appropriate. Such analyses are only as good as the estimates of cost and safety improvement. Are you satisfied with the validity of the NRC's cost estimates in light of information that the industry has supplied? No. Do you want to elaborate? Yeah, I will. I will. When I first got here, I think Hody's out there someplace in the audience and Jason's on back in 2010, we were talking about the agency's experience of the Part 73 rulemaking and the security, physical security enhancements. And I think that's one where from a case study, we didn't do a good job and neither did industry. And I think the lack of fidelity of cost estimates in that Part 73 rulemaking served as a kind of a wake-up call for the agency to realize we need to do better, but we can't get to a better place without industry's more thoughtful input. I do think there's been enhanced awareness of this in the last three or four years in the context of cumulative effects of regulation, in the context of cost benefit analyses for regulatory decision-making under the backfit rule. I think we're making improvement. I don't think we're where we need to be. Thank you. Commissioner, you've suggested that the NRC should liberally interpret the Atomic Energy Act's prohibition on foreign ownership control and domination of production and utilization facilities. Do you think the commission will have another opportunity to consider this issue? Well, first I'm going to go back to a meeting we had, I believe it was in January 2015 on this topic, and we had some extremely helpful insights external to the nuclear industry from the Department of Defense from the aerospace industry and other sectors. Commission colleagues, we all engaged in voting on this topic, our votes are on our website, and I think you can see a very rich discussion on the foreign ownership control and domination piece in our website. So I think all of us recognize that the world today, as of the time we voted back in 2015, the world in 2015 is not the same as it was in 1954 when the Atomic Energy Act was passed. The globalization of the economy that 60 years ago people thought that all of the nuclear technology would really be controlled by the United States. That is far from the case today. So I think if you look at Commissioner Votes on this, you'll see a very comprehensive discussion by all four commissioners on this topic. I don't see anything right before the commission here in the near term that would suggest a revision of this, but I think the commission, if the issue comes up again, will deal with it. All right. Here's a question for you. What's the status of the Yucca Mountain license application review, and will NRC seek funds to resume the hearing process? I think we were asked this at a congressional hearing recently. Well, certainly our staff did a superb job of completing the safety evaluation report, putting that out in the public in January 2015, completing the environmental impact statement. Still working on the South Mill Environmental Impact Statement, which I believe is due out, I believe sometime this fall. There are not funds in the current budget request to address the hearing adjudication issues you're asking about. So the second part of that, will the commission seek the resources? Well, the commission, in the context of the fiscal year 2017 budget and recognizing that this is part of an administration, office of management and budget OMB process, the budget request that went to the Congress did not include those funds. I'll tell you, I'll speak for myself. I have personally supported those funds and passed votes. Thank you. What role, if any, does the Atomic Energy Commission's concept of beyond regulatory concern play, especially with respect to the Fukushima actions? I think the question might twist a variety of different concepts there, but I'm sure you'll be able to address it in terms of Fukushima. Well, I'll just say without going, I'm not sure where, what year that pronouncement came out, but I'll tell you that in the context of the near term task force report, let me make this statement. The near term task force group under Charlie Miller and Company did a superb job. But let me just clarify what they did do. They didn't necessarily say go regulate this additionally or that additionally. They said, go look at these areas. There's a big difference between exploring and analyzing a given area on the one hand, which is what they teed up, and the other hand suggesting go add additional requirement X, Y, or Z over here. So I bring that up because I think to answer the question, Mike, I believe that near term task force, the Japan Lessons Learned Directorate, the steering committee, and the numerous commission votes we've had have had some things have come up that we did not believe needed to be regulated. And so therefore perhaps following the category of beyond regulatory concern. Okay, thanks. If there are no more questions, we might actually complete early because I've gone through the questions. Commissioners, when they leave the agency, seldom have the opportunity to have such an audience. As you may know within the NRC, we typically have a farewell Godspeed kind of ceremony in honor of our commissioners, and this is not your departure from the commission. But I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to applaud you and your leadership on the commission and wish you every best in the future. Thank you, Mike. Thank you all.


ess, you know, some issue, I would know that say we could get a perspective from the right that was pro free market and we could get a perspective from the left that was more in favor of governmental regulation, say, right, and then if I had a free market article and a, you know, and a regulation article or something like that, we were representing a range of viewpoints on an issue, no matter what it was, and that was fine, right? And that was really clear for social studies teachers for many years for all sorts of stuff, right? Again, over the last four or five years, there's been just a real shift, right? Partly in the Democratic Party much more in the Republican Party. And so it's much harder for social studies teachers and civics teachers to know whether or not what they are presenting will be perceived by people across the political spectrum, both as representing their own perspectives on the political spectrum and as representing a perspective that is legitimate to teach. So that's the other part of this, like the third feature of this that's really hard right now for teachers, which is that there's this disagree, there's I think more profound disagreement right now than there was say 10 or 15 years ago about even what the sort of boundary lines are for the sort of the legitimate disagreement within those walls and the illegitimate claims outside those walls, right? So there's a really wonderful civic education researcher, Diana Hess, who's currently the dean at the University of Wisconsin School of Education. And she wrote a book called Controversy in the Classroom. And then in that book, she distinguishes between what she calls open questions and settled questions. And then actually in a newer book that she wrote with Paula McAvoy called The Political Classroom, they then talk about open and settled empirical questions and open and settled policy questions. So I'm just going to focus on the policy side at the moment. So an a settled policy question is whether or not women should vote, right? That was an open question for a good century, right? It has now been, it remained open even after the passage of the amendment, right? But eventually it was settled and nobody now thinks that we should teach or that like that a teacher would be appropriate to teach whether women should vote as being a truly open question, right? They should teach kids to respect, all people's right to vote if they satisfy their criteria regardless of gender identity, for example. A question that was open for a long time more recently was same-sex marriage, right? And those on the left would like to consider that now to be a closed question, right? At following Obergefell and say it's done with, the Supreme Court has delivered its decision and it's clearly a matter of human rights and it's a matter of marriage equality and you should not teach that as an open question. Again, you should teach that people no matter what their sexual identity should have the right to under the recognition of the law marry whomever they want to marry. On the other hand, if you flip that around to say the recognition of corporations as persons with Citizens United, the fact that that was also ruled by the Supreme Court is a sudden reversal and those on the left under no circumstances wish to treat that as a settled question, right? That mean they believe that it was wrongly decided and that corporations should not be recognized as people and that corporate expenditures should not be seen as being a First Amendment exercise of free speech. So whereas, some on the right would absolutely like to treat that as a settled question. So what we see is that many of the markers for what is settled versus open are themselves actually contested depending on what one's substantive views are and where teachers get really in trouble is when they want to teach something as open or as settled, where there is disagreement about whether they're right about what that is and Diana has calls this teaching in the tip and she actually describes it for herself as when she was a student. She was taught that the Japanese internment camps were an unfortunate but appropriate response to foreign aggression, right? Then she describes herself as a young teacher where she was really edgy with her colleagues by having students debate the Japanese internment camps. And she says now she looks back at that and thinks, oh my gosh, what was I doing? Like it's so clearly settled now on the other direction, right? That the Japanese internment camps were unconstitutional and it was wrong to have interned American citizens, right? You know, in camps based on their Japanese heritage, right? There are all sorts of questions that we are in this swirl of right now where, again, we may disagree on whether they are open or settled and where there's movement. And so this is my final thing to use, Senator Lyons, sorry. This is super hard for teachers right now because they will be treating it like if they teach something like Black Lives Matter and have students discuss it, they may want to treat something as being settled that a child's parent as they overhear them on Zoom think either is open or is actually settled on the other side, right? And vice versa, they may want to teach something as open that a parent views as being settled. And that's where it gets also really, really, really complicated for teachers. Wow. Actually, that was terrific. That was terrific. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I'm regretting that we didn't book you for the day, but we really do unfortunately in about 10 minutes, so at the most. So let's see, Senator Hooker, please. I would rather, people just jump in. That was wonderful and I wish we could go on for hours and we may have to enroll in one of your courses or something, but my question has to do with what's in S17 and I think the goal of S17 is to make sure that our students have an understanding of the formation of our government, the structure of our government, what that means in their daily lives. And we can get into the weeds and it's fascinating. And as a former teacher, I can identify with the angst that you feel when you don't know whether or not you should be talking about something in class. But I think to my question then is, how could we start supposing we were starting with a clean slate pre-K or something like that? What do we do to lay the foundation for these civic minded individuals? So let me tell you something that I noticed is not in S17 right now that I would encourage you to think about as a committee and as you work with the other co-sponsors. So right now, what S17 asks students to do is to learn a bunch of things about how government works and what the principles are that drive government. In this respect, it is potentially, it runs the risk of having students learn about how citizenship and government out there works. It doesn't ask them to do any work about themselves as citizens or rights holders or responsibility holders. So this is something that I find super interesting and kind of bizarre about civic education that is different from any other thing that we try to teach kids to do in schools. So when we teach English in schools, for example, like we want kids to be good writers, we want them to be good readers, we want them to be good communicators, one of the major ways in which we do that is we get them to read and to write and to communicate. They spend some time studying how other people write and communicate and even read. So they may learn that good readers visualize and ask questions and so you assign somebody in their reading circle to be the visualizer and the question asker and so forth. But then you're having them do that. You're having them practice the skills of good reading as they're doing their literature circles.  To have them learn math, you're having them do math every day, right? They often do math badly, right? They make all sorts of mistakes, but that's the whole point is that's how they learn how to do the math well, right? When we want them to learn to play basketball or baseball, we're enrolling them in Little League, we're signing them up for club sports.  We don't expect many of them to go off and use math beyond basically like late elementary or maybe algebra and most of what they do, but we think you have to do this in order to learn this and to develop an identity as I can be a mathematician, I can be a writer, I can be a reader. Civics is the only thing where we ask kids to learn about how other people do citizenship instead of having them do citizenship. It's just so weird to me, right? Like if we want kids to learn to be mathematicians, we ask them to do math, to be readers, we ask them to read, to be baseball players, we ask them to play baseball. If we want them to learn citizenship, we should ask them to do citizenship, right? Like that's what we know about good learning in absolutely every other domain of life. And unlike, frankly, baseball or as I suggest, even math or say biology or whatever, every single child who is going through the Vermont public schools is growing up to be a rights holder and a responsibility holder, to have a civic roles and responsibilities, whether or not they're a full American citizen, right? And so that's what we know about kids is that they will have civic rights and responsibilities. We don't know anything else about their lives, but we do know that. So we should have them doing citizenship. And that, I feel, is the sort of core thing that's right now missing in S17. And that's what's missing in most civic education, frankly, is that we have kids learn how other people have done citizenship. That's great. I mean, yeah, I think it's brilliant what you said. I mean, we don't know if you're gonna be a mathematician or a basketball player, but we know you're gonna be a citizen. We know you're gonna have some kind of civic life here in the United States. And so getting students to actually do it is great. Please, Senator Chitenden. So thank you for that last comment. One of the concerns I raised early on, and I really hope I don't offend anybody who wrote the bill, my concern is I don't want politicians defining curriculum, because what you just described for me is something that I want educators factoring into how do we teach civics and they know teaching, they know kids, they know pedagogical approaches. So a thank you for saying it that way and that what you don't see in the bill is how you truly ingrain the action and the active activities that can create the modern day educational experience where it will really internalize civic education. So my concern persists and I don't know how to rectify it in today's discussion, but I really appreciate your last comment. Right, yes, as we said earlier, Professor Levinson, this is a bill that a colleague of ours put in. There are some other people that co-sponsored it. It's kind of a starting point to have a discussion. And I think just having it here before us helps raise these questions and is getting us to think in different ways. If I may, I am would like to just go back if you don't mind concluding with who are the winners and losers right now around how do we predict, I think was the way actually you said it, the chief predictors of whether or not students are going, young people are going to get engaged. So the very strongest predictor now and over time is the number of years of education. So if you look say, simple as voting rates, but also at other things, college graduates are disproportionately involved and high school dropouts are disproportionately uninvolved. And it tracks really linearly, right? By high school graduates, some college college graduates in fact, then advanced degrees. That is the most strong predictor. The other predictors, unfortunately in my view, wealth and income are also incredibly strong predictors. And I assume that you all know that as elected officials because you know who does vote is more likely to vote and also have power obviously through financial donations but also interestingly, both education and income are positively associated with things like participating in protests, testifying to elected or appointed officials, working with others to solve a community problem, sharing their political views online. You know, like doesn't really matter what the kind of civic or political activity is. People with higher levels of income and higher levels of education tend to be more there. And then third of all, race and ethnicity are also highly predictive. So African-Americans and whites vote about the same rate which actually means that in that respect because African-Americans on average have somewhat lower levels of education and definitely lower levels of both income and wealth than whites do, that they are kind of civic superstars in that respect with respect to voting. But along other dimensions actually whites outperform blacks along various kinds of civic participation. And particularly Asian-American and Latino and Latina-Americans have much lower levels of civic and political participation. And this is when you're just looking at citizens. This is not because of say differences in citizenship status. Even if you were just looking at citizens, say Asian and Hispanic citizens tend to vote at substantially lower rates historically have than black and white citizens. And so unsurprisingly, it is also the case, you know, because this is as true for civic education as if for anything else, that schools that serve wealthier families and communities and also whiter families and communities tend to provide more civic learning opportunities both through within the classroom. They're more likely to have open classroom discussions, debates, simulations, things like that than schools that serve lower income kids and communities of color. They're also more likely to have student government, to have school newspapers or podcasts or webpages that kids are involved in, things like that. They're more likely to have extracurricular activities that the students are taking leadership roles in. Whereas schools that serve lower income kids and kids of color are more likely to have both fewer extracurricular activities but also have those extracurricular activities be more adult led as opposed to student led. And, you know, that's another domain in which kids develop civic skills and dispositions. So in all of those ways, we end up seeing, you know, differences in the kinds of civic learning opportunities that kids receive. Professor Levison, I do apologize. We need to leave it there. I think your even brief time with us was absolutely incredible. And certainly has left us all thinking, speaking personally, differently around what kinds of things we might do. So let's, if possible, we may be back in touch but this is hugely, hugely helpful. Great, terrific. All right, best of luck with this. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, committee. We are, I'm afraid we must adjourn for the day, rather abruptly. But look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow.


Hello again, it's Keith. I am Misty number 39 as always. It is Wednesday August 2nd when I'm recording this and last Saturday in Seattle I saw the Live MST 3k show the secret movie. I chose to go to Seattle because of the secret movie. I've seen Ega I Couldn't afford to go to more than one movie So I decided to go to Seattle now before I show you my review and I have a co-reviewer who I'll introduce later I had two tickets to the show and I was going alone but I had met these two kids at the fanfest in Portland about a month ago and They were so enthusiastic about being in front of the camera. I Was saying I have to find some kind of video project for these girls So and they were in Seattle already. So I got in touch with them and I said do you want these tickets? I'll let you have these tickets if you'll review the thing afterwards and the key was that they had never heard of Mystery Science Theater Well, one of them ended up not being able to make it at the last minute So I took that other ticket and I went in with Helen McClay and it was actually a good thing For me that it worked out that way because I was able to sit next to a complete newbie Who didn't know anything about Mystery Science Theater and watch her reactions as we were going into the door? We saw Jackie Naiman Jones from Manos the Hands of Fate She was with Tonya Atomic the director of the Manos sequel that Jackie produced last year Rachel Jackson of Manos the Hands of Felt was with them and likewise after the show Jackie and Rachel went into the VIP reception with Joel Hodg and he invited them to it. There's a picture of it there It was very nice of him Helen and I after the show went next door to the Moore Hotel and sat down in the lobby and recorded our spontaneous reactions before I show you that video I have to give a shout out to Darius Lewis who was working the front desk at the Moore Hotel He had seen the live show just before our show the the showing of Ega So he knew Mystery Science Theater. He knew what we were there to do and he said sure sit down in the lobby to do it Thanks, Darius. I have to thank you again. Also For giving me batteries for my microphone. You gave me batteries out of your pocket. I can't thank you enough Okay, with all that said Spoiler warning we do reveal the name of the secret movie It's not a movie that's ever been on any Mystery Science Theater episode or live show before It was a total surprise for me as well I don't know whether this will ever be released on video if it isn't wow. I'm lucky. I saw it But here it is All right, this is Keith misting number 39 and this is McClay squirrel girl from the fan fest We just saw the Mystery Science Theater live show the The secret show, I don't know if it was the same secret show everywhere It was what was the name of the movie? Oh Argo man Argo man. I think I kept saying Argo man the fantastic Superman. Yeah. Yeah Oh, yeah, because of the fantastic and super. Yeah It was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen Yeah, even for Mystery Science Theater one of the dumbest this is working, right? Yeah, okay I invited Helen along because When she and I were talking last week I Learned that she'd never even heard of Mystery Science Theater much less seen it before and She was here in Seattle So I said come see Mystery Science Theater and I want to get your reaction Well, what was your reaction? Wow So I guess I got to have my reaction like both to the movie into Mystery Science Theater because like Mystery Science Theater Like there's so much history and lore and all these cool things There's just the movie. That's really bad And I love the premise like it was really cool because I was gonna I was deciding whether do I Watch some of Mystery Science Theater. Do I like prepare myself like I've been familiar with a few of the characters and icons from the show But I wasn't like I know what this is and so like no, I'm just gonna go in blind Yeah, and It was interesting because like for the first half like a lot of it was like I was figuring it out And I was surrounded by people because these are people who have helped fundraise for the show on Netflix I'm not sure if you're like, what is this? Like how do I interact with it? And so it wasn't until like about there was the second after I didn't permission like second half So I really got into it and like the jokes were hitting hard Yeah, I was really enjoying it. So it was really cool because one thing I really appreciate is it's definitely It has its fans are for the fans because like these are people who loved it like you you've got it since the beginning and There's also all these current jokes for like people like me who are just coming in and there's also these jokes They're just playing either just stupid or silly or just like basic comedic jokes And so I think I don't know I had a really fun time It was super cool because I was seeing extra two people who were just really into it It was really fun and it makes me really want to go and see all the different yeah episodes I was very interested to see if you would Have any appreciation for it at all if it would even be funny. Oh, yes But but yeah, like she was saying and anyone who's a fan of mystery science theater, you know, there's so much There's so much Depth to the the comedy writing for the show.  This is one of this is one of the most perfect Mystery science theater movies I've ever seen. It is so rich with opportunities that there are movies that Even the most hard for hard for fans can't can't sit through. Okay, because There are a lot of movies where just nothing happens They're classically bad. Yeah, yeah, they're gonna be bad. I suspect that Argo man Would be a screamed watch just on your own.   Don't even don't even try it. I mean yellow suit. Yeah, you can't do it It's like after we had an intermission and we came back from intermission and I was like, is this a different movie? Yeah, it's like a whole different movie. It was a British spy and then you're like well now There's people running around in silly costumes. The most the most ridiculously sexist British spy I've ever seen and all of them are terribly sexist.  Yeah And I couldn't the first half of the movie I couldn't tell Number one who was supposed to be argoman that they were talking about and was this and was this guy supposed to be I thought he was a villain. I thought yeah, I was I honestly I had no idea Existed yeah guy in yellow suit jump. Yeah, I didn't I thought there was like a spy detective movie. Yeah, and Then they worked in the high-key reference, of course, there has to be a high-key reference in every yeah in every movie I was telling you this season one All the 25 years ago Episode four But it's more complicated that because they renumbered it later Anyway, his history lore and You were you were really jazzed to learn that Joel Hodgson is the boy is mayor Dewey. Oh, that was a fun little fact. So I was learning and because I Wanted to once we were there like one might as well learn some things And so I learned that like your favorite was Joel Hodgson And he was there for a little bit and then he moved on and he was a comedian and he was talking at the beginning because there's people coming in and There's someone brought up Steven Universe, and I'm a big fan of Steven Universe and did like the mayor do you know? It's like It's really like the falsely grow of like what people yeah Anubi can have a connection to your hot son the original Like I was I I'm a huge fan of Steven Universe. I had seen all of it. I had no idea Joel Hodgson was Mayor Dewey I saw online someone mentioned that Joel Hodgson was Mayor Dewey. I was like what? I know that and then I was talking with these Steven Universe cosplayers at the next convention. I went to I said I'm so thrilled To see that Joel Hodgson is in this and they were like, huh, who was I said mystery science theater Okay, I thought these kids were hip Yeah, yeah your hip kid I also really appreciated so the title of the live show was mr 3000 was it be where is oh shoot watch out for snakes watch out for snakes live show and so I was like Okay, so that's a line in the previous movie. That wasn't the mystery movie Yeah, except I really appreciated the fact that like there's like a snake on one of the ladies dress And so he made that a bit and so they ran with the like yeah, I was I was thinking that too They made a bit in this movie So I figure that like if it that's like the overarching theme was like that's what those those are lines are pulling from And I I I like the fact that I was a Felicia Day fan before she became part of the show and you know And when they would say watch out for snakes, there would be a Felicia Day video. Oh, yeah a little gun. Yeah Okay, well before the show when Joel was answering questions and I was thinking okay. She's gonna be completely lost. She has no idea what he's talking about and Then he makes the Mayor Dewey reference and then they start the show and I'm like, oh, that's right The theme song of the show explains the show, which is very handy. Yeah This one we have nice little sing-a-line. Mm-hmm and the countdown with the doors opening and closing I really appreciated that. That was a cool touch. Mm-hmm and the they they keep talking about movie sign Oh, we've got movie sign and then they have to run down the hallway Originally in the first season Movie sign when when the thing started flashing and Joel had movie sign He would get shocked if he didn't go into the theater. Okay, gotcha. It was a condition response from the mad scientist So everybody yells movie sign and start screaming. That's why they're screaming The show that lasts for 10 years. Oh, you have and where every episode was two hours long They did such a good job of including new material like They had a lot of Hamilton jokes Hamilton jokes that uber jokes. Yeah, you'll gabba gabba jokes You'll gabba gabba jokes. They had a few of those. They had zero of those Boy, you'll gabba gabba. He's getting dark There's not a few and then I really appreciate it There's one part where he comes out of the pool and just it's such a practical like stuff. Yeah Jokes that don't have any cultural revenue. They're just stupid The writing is so good you asked me during intermission you said Are the all the riffing and the jokes are so spot-on with the movie you didn't realize you didn't realize that it was written Yeah, so I wasn't sure because like because what you told me is that he was and where he was a comedian So like okay, so I don't know like if they're if they're all comedians And they're going off or if it's scripted because like that's that's hard to do Like already you're taking this material that isn't necessarily the best or it is the best, but you don't really know night-for-night And so it was cool because it was so well on but it wasn't it didn't feel very dry It didn't feel like oh, they're like saying something. Yeah. Yeah, and so just having that like Response to what you're going for the the the riffing in this movie. That's what it's called By the way, everything it was really consistent and it wasn't It wasn't too much. There are some movies where they They keep going too much and it's and it kind of buries the joke and it sounds Robotic almost kind of stiff this one. I didn't feel they never really felt stiff That was one of my problems with the new season it felt too written and And I remember Joel in an interview talking about he was trying to make the new shows Actually feel that way feel feel like they're more integrated into the film And I really didn't understand what he meant because I was fine with the way the show has always been I I do have to tell you I whenever Joel does an interview. I Never understand him. I don't understand Joel Hodgson at all. His perspective. His perspectives are really strange He'll always say something that he's coming from an angle that I'm like, I Never have gotten that I so he's obviously obviously I appreciate his humor But I can't say that I understand him at all even after even after all this time. Yeah, those are your creators Yeah, yeah, the the show has always had a staff of writers that aren't necessarily appearing on the show and writers from a wide variety of backgrounds. That's why you can see You know a Death Star joke and a Hamilton joke I heard you laughing at it.  That's so lame Yeah, I could always yeah when I would hear you laugh I there was something that they said at one point You were leaning forward and they said something and you were shaking your head like this You didn't get it, but that happened plenty of times. I guess Well, you already said that you don't get the reference to watch out for snakes But they made you get the reference You get the reference and that's one thing that I appreciate is that like with within the movie And this is what comedians do is that they'll there was a joke about robes And so like they brought it back and so it wasn't like it wasn't It was like kind of like the last call, but like for an audience member Yeah, you don't understand any if you are stuck in a box You at least understand the fart doing a breathing jokes and when they connect like from the beginning to the end doing a call back Yeah doing the call back to self-referencing the material within the show. Yeah, and you're right That's what comedians do. That's what a good comedian does the show over the years developed its own kind of weird continuity Even though the even though the motto is the show. It's just a show. You should really just relax Like I said in the yeah, yeah, we should really just relax Right, but it does have its own continuity and This Cynthia character is supposedly a clone of one of the villains from the original show Who was the mother of the original villain of the show and Felicia Day's character is his daughter So this is a clone of her grandmother. Wowzers. Yeah Besides Jonah and and Joel and Cynthia The rest of the cast aren't here one of the guys playing the one of the robots tonight Is not the guy in in the new show. They had to get someone else to do it. Yeah, they mentioned that in a joke Yeah, you're right. They said the voice is different. Yeah. Yeah, okay. You you picked up on there. Haha Yeah, and Yeah, and then You should go back and watch Some of the original shows and you should you should also go back and watch What I originally knew Joel from was his stand-up days from the early 80s He was the whole idea at the beginning of the show the invention exchange where they each have an invention the the villains and Jonah They were talking about it new inventions that they made he invented the hatch. Oh, yes. Yes. Yeah, yeah, and and That came from Joel's Background as a stand-up comedian. He was a prop comedian. He would come out with a case full of Ridiculous jump that he's invented and all of that stuff showed up in the first few seasons He reused all that stuff. That's awesome And I knew him from the prop comedy days and he disappeared for a few years and Then 1989 Comedy Central came along. I saw him on the commercials. I was back Yeah he created the show in Ktma TV station in Minneapolis where you're moving. Yeah, where I get to be for school. Yeah, so When you go to Minneapolis and you see Mystery Science Theater references, you would have just walked past them Now you'll know what they're talking about I saw a picture recently that the the Minneapolis Baseball team whoever they are twins twins. They have a Mystery Science Theater night And in their stadium. I Don't know what they do, but they have a Mystery Science Theater night because it's a local thing Yeah, this is because this is the first time that there's been a Mystery Science Theater live show There's never been a lot for the other other people involved in this show have done their own live shows Before movie riffing you ever heard of riff tracks. Yeah They came from Mystery Science Theater the people who run riff tracks Were the voices of the robots and Mike was Mike on he was the Mike Nelson who hosted the show That's interesting. You know riff tracks, but you don't know Mystery Science Theater Yeah That's so cool. Yeah That's really interesting, you know riff tracks Yeah, they were originally Mystery Science Theater. Cool.  I am a pro. I've seen it live I've talked about lore and I have intentions to keep watching Mm-hmm. I just have to scour YouTube and yeah Yeah, the island looks and crannies of the internet to find all the different shows I would say watch the original show before you start watching the new yeah Oh, yeah, I would say watch some of those go back and start watching season two and three not season one season one You can it was very different It had it had an even different cast the guy who was the original voice of Tom servo was He was a 17 year old kid in Minneapolis that they knew okay, and he left after the first season to go to college and But he's he they've brought him back and he does live shows with them But there's there are few even old-school Misty's who started with him I think we need to wrap up Yeah, thank you for doing this. Yeah, thank you so much Fantastic, I'm sure we'll see her again on 50th Street Well, there you have it There's a new Misty out there in the sky. Thank you Helen for doing this with me What fun, I'm glad I went to the trouble. I'm glad I went to the expense. It's a once-in-a-lifetime experience I had no idea I was gonna see a movie that I'd never seen before I thought surely it would be an episode from the the new season 11 and I will Record my review of season 11 coming soon That's it for this episode of Misty number 39 Please click the thumbs up button and look for my MST 3k related talk show called talk to the hand every episode is about Manos the hands of fate and only Manos the hands of fate and please consider becoming a patron visit the 50th Street website That's 50th dot ST and follow the talk to the hand link when you become a talk to the hand patron at the $30 level you receive a copy of the Manos coloring book what you see here. Thank you and please come again


Hi everybody Sean with jazby's case breaks comm doing a 2020 upper deck Goodwin champions six box break random letters number five MS paint job right there We're gonna be pulling this from a eight box inner So we'll randomize which six boxes we're gonna pick as well. But first let's do the list of customers We've got Daniel Graham down to Charles Seekman and our letters from a down to W all Hits in this that will be going our We're gonna be doing it based off the first letter of the name. So Michael Jordan would go to M LeBron James would go to L Tiger would go to T the tiger would go to T but because of tiger So we'll go through that no veterans will go in here. No base other than Michael Jordan and LeBron James We're gonna do a randomizer roll dice. See how many times we're gonna randomize both lists We're gonna do a two and a four six times Good luck and six in final time Gary Prescott Down to Enoch and now for the list of letters one two three four five and six in final time from D down to spot C and Gary Prescott with spot D Brian Magnus with spot N Charles with spot T Josh Proust with V Daniel Graham with W will Christian with a Sean one wiener with P and L Enoch with spot J Lenny with spot R David Janker with spot M Charles with the spot S Jarell Taylor with the I F E and all other non-listed letters spot Daniel Graham with spot B and Enoch with spot C If anybody in here is part of this break in the chat and would like to trade go ahead and try now If not, we'll quickly move along So here's the list No chatter on trades. So we'll go with what random dot org gave us Here is our case You can see there's eight boxes in here. We're only breaking six. So we're gonna actually do a randomizer One through eight We'll open it up Figure out which six we're gonna pull the other two will be rolled over into the next breaks Which we do have other the next breaks of this sold out So for the sake of making this easy We will say it's one two three four five six seven eight so One two three four five six seven eight We'll do a randomizer of the numbers one through eight The top six numbers will be the six boxes that we use We'll randomize this one 11 times 11 times. So we're gonna do boxes four five six Two one eight seven and three are the only boxes. We are not going to do so I'll remove those So box number three would be this one here That'll be saved for an upcoming break and Box number seven, which would be down here. You can see on the randomizer there 11 times down on the bottom and the seven and the three or the numbers that did not get picked for this break. So No, James. We're doing number five right now number six. We'll be going tomorrow Cali's finest spots on this are 59 99 a spot. Good luck everyone Yeah, we had a I did one of these earlier today We hit some really nice stuff the manufactured patches and this are pretty cool This year you've got cats and sea creatures we did pretty good on a on the last break we ended up with a three of the tier one cat manufactured car patches Which I think are one out of every hundred packs. So Three of those and then the sea creatures the lowest level of that tier one is numbered is one out of every 180 packs so To be able to get three of those and a sea creature in the same one pretty cool and the relics in these are amazing, too Some really nice old Stamps packs on these are a little bit hard to get open though Yeah, Cali's we didn't have a lot of this so You get to check in and see about availability on personal for that or just get into one of the group breaks And then I think a number six and seven. I think are both sold out Jasper's case breaks calm check availability Those will be going tomorrow Thursday, this will be the last break of the night We'll be back tomorrow Joe starting at 1 o'clock Stay tuned Cali's Nickel update the site, but it's release day. They moved really quickly Thanks, man. So we talked about baseball with our last optic break now with this kind of being obviously upper deck a little bit heavier in basketball with Jordan LeBron being upper deck athletes How's everybody feel about the next week restart of basketball and Anybody putting the wagers down? anybody got any Inklings on what's gonna happen with the restart Surprise teams that are gonna over perform Surprise teams that will underperform Yeah, I think everybody feels that way Cali. Well, we get baseball back tomorrow like we said So that's a start soccer already restarted mls with some Variation of success it definitely kind of stopped everything in its tracks, but hopefully Things are kind of starting to get back on track. I think sports Will be a good distraction a necessary distraction But I do like that. They're also giving the players the chance to highlight the causes That are important to them, you know that are obviously in the limelight right now And so far, you know, the ones I've seen from like MLS and stuff. They've handled it pretty well LeBron James J going to Enoch Scarface mini Going to Charles John Butchegross going to J and Enoch Steven Root S going to Charles See you Brandon Jin Yu Frey Going to J and Enoch the king going to K and Jarell with the non-listed K spot Yep first auto Mark Henry strong man M for David Janker Denny Avdija For D and Gary Prescott and we've got a cat And it's the Scottish fold. So that's going to the S and Charles No numbering on that. It's still rare hit one out of every hundred packs Yeah, it's funny that they have Mark Henry as a strong man instead of a wrestler in here John Butchegross J Enoch and Ryan Stasek 3d R Lenny Jenny Andrade J for Enoch Timothy Way T and Charles Wayne Gretzky W Daniel Bianca Andrescu B Daniel Jenny Andrade Lumberjack mini J for Enoch Miles Bridges M going to David Janker Ryan Stasek mini going to R and Lenny Denny Avdija Going to Gary Tiger Woods mini for Charles Robin Bone R and Lenny Nick the Cena N and Brian Jaime Munguya Lumberjack mini For the J spot in Enoch Joe Burrow For J and Enoch Stevie Weiss Going to S and Charles Jamie Dwyer Going to J and Enoch Casey Myse Mini for Enoch Jesse Lebrek J and Enoch And second auto Jenny Andrade Model J going to Enoch Stevie Weiss And Heads of State Vintage Stamp John Tyler going to the J spot Enoch Kim Mark Henry Mini And another cat American Shorthair Going to A J No numbering on that Christian Coleman C Enoch And Wander Franco W Daniel Jinyou Frey For J and Enoch Steven Root Mini For Charles Tiger Woods Going to Charles and T spot And all the base For LeBron James Going to L and Sean Wainer Going to M and David Yanker That's the first two boxes, guys Callie, you met Mark Henry At the store Oh, nice That's cool Well, when you're as big as he is There's no real hiding, you know, who you are He might not be the biggest name In wrestling and stuff, but Still, I'm sure he's Recognizable by, you know The majority of the population If not, just his Ridiculous size Will make people, you know, kind of look And want to talk to him That's a lot of orange So two cat cards And two boxes Last time we had three Out of six Let me say four this time Maybe one numbered Cool Yeah, it is pretty nice I was a customer before I worked here So each of these boxes has Odds of even the lowest level Cat card is one out of every hundred packs So with a six box Break You're looking at 120 packs there Just a little bit over One In this break is expected We've gotten two So we're already beating the odds Hopefully We can kind of get some stuff In place and Figure out how many people Limit and potentially get it open again Once everything Kind of gets back to Normal So you can come on in again And see a little remodel work Have a new Set up for Instagram Have our own studio We just switched to this week And just get people other than ourselves in here I'm looking forward to When we can have a Trade night And see stuff there Think about all the people that have been Getting hits and stuff this whole time A lot of people don't Like to deal online Rather do in person Pretty cool Yeah, I think everybody is kind of ready for it Just Wait and see Next two boxes Casey Meis M David Janker The mini Is Fabiano Caruana I heard The youngest Chess World Champion Ever Apparently one of his first championships But like 13 or 14 years old Ryan Stasek R Lenny Tzerina Brendan Bayless B Daniel Graham And Darius Garland Otto Going to D Erica Hosseini E Jarell Wander Franco Relic Going to W and Daniel Graham Alex Morgan, Lumberjack Mini for Will Christian Alex Morgan for Will Christian Again, Alex Morgan Mini again for Will Christian Pretty awesome Joe Morowski J and Enoch Megan Rapino For M and David Janker Ben Simmons, Relic Going to the B spot and Daniel Scarface S and Charles Tiger going to T and Charles Well that too, Callie Which is a great soccer player too Bianca Andrescu B and Daniel Graham Manon Rioum Going to M and David Janker Ryan Stasek R and Lenny Jason Dominguez That's going to J and Enoch Vince Russo Going to V and Josh Proust Fabiano Caruana F and Jarell Rose Lavelle Going to R and Lenny Wander Franco W and Daniel Rose Lavelle Lumberjack Mini for Lenny Cori for David Bianca Andrescu For Daniel Megan Rapino For David And head of state Victor Emanuel III The King of Italy Going to V and Josh Proust Laura Wilkinson L and Sean And Ken Jennings Relic From his suit maybe A spot, Jarell Taylor Darius Garland Mini D for Gary Prescott And another cat This one is Devin Rex Really cool looking There No numbering And D that's going to Gary Prescott Tim Way Going to Charles and T Denny Avdija Going to the D spot and Gary Tiger Woods Mini For Charles Casey Myers for Enoch Jason Dominguez Gaudi For Enoch Jaime Munguia For Enoch And that's boxes three and four Last two boxes And this will be the last break of the night So thanks to everybody for sticking around Three cat cards Two of the State I'm calling four cat cards I'd like to see if we can end the night With a really nice card Like a LeBron James Auto Pretty cool 1.30 in the morning Pacific 4.30 in the morning eastern There's still 21 people here in the stream Anybody in this break Or just spectating It's always fun So do I What's up Lenny? Have we hit you a cat card yet? Well Hopefully that'll Bring you some mojo, man Here for a 4.30 break for yourself If I can will it, I will Lenny have you poured yourself a coffee yet Or are you holding off on that For another half hour or so Get your Thursday started Good luck everybody Last boxes, last break of the night Ken Jennings Kay Jarell Heads of State Theodore Roosevelt T going to Charles Robin Bone Mini R for Lenny Miles Bridges M for David RJ Hampton Potential number one overall pick Going to Lenny Eric Cosini Mini for Jarell Mesut Ozil For M and David Charles Lebron James Mini Lumberjack Monon Rium For M going to David Yanker And John Buchagras Relic Going to Jay and Enoch Jaime Munguia Jay Enoch And then Joe Burrow 3D card Also going to Jay and Enoch Rose Lavelle Mini for Josh Proust Dominika Sibylkova For D and Gary Tiger Woods Gowdy going to Charles Jaime Munguia Jay and Enoch And last box Good luck everyone Darius Garland Going to Gary Prescott Big Boy Mini going to Daniel Graham Laura Wilkinson Going to Sean Weiner Lebron James For Sean And another Lebron James for Sean Joe Burrow Mini Lumberjack going to Enoch Ken Jennings Kay going to Jarell Taylor Mark Henry Mini Going to David Yanker Jin Yu Fre Jay and Enoch Tiger Going to Charles Siakam Redemption Auto Wander Franco For Daniel Graham Congrats Daniel Spot W 2020 Goodwin Champions Horizontal Autographs No numbering Congrats Fabiano Cruanna Going to Jarell Taylor And then Relic for Jamie Dwyer Jay and Enoch Very nice hit Casey Myse Mini going to Enoch And Laura Wilkinson Going to Sean Simone Manuel Going to Charles Jason Dominguez Mini Going to Enoch Theo Maladon Going to Charles And last stack That is head of state John Quincy Adams Vintage Stamp Jay and Enoch with that spot Phil Dahlhauser Going to Sean Weiner Tiger Mini Going to Charles And that's our last hit That was 2020 Upper Deck Goodwin Champions 6 box break Random Letter No. 5 I'm Sean with jaspyscasebreaks.com Thank you very much for sticking with us tonight Check jaspyscasebreaks.com for any future breaks Get in, see what we can do Starting again tomorrow Thursday at 1 o'clock Thanks guys


Reload so that my timer works well Okay, hello, it's three o'clock So I am John Denning. I'm going to be talking about Actually a little bit about some of the work I did during my PhD so I am from Taylor University and in the United States and Just to give you a little bit of backgrounds Presently, I'm an assistant professor in a computer science and engineering department at Taylor University Where I teach computer graphics and core CS courses I got my PhD at Dartmouth College Where in computer science and focusing on computer graphics, but I I have graphics up there, but my approach to graphics is very much from the programmers point of view You know, I worked on poly strips, but I'm not an artist So as you can see here, this is a pretty terrible sculpt and I I'm proud to say I worked very many hours on it But But I'm interested in modeling and sculpting and as a researcher as a scientist Why not study artists and learn to become better? Well, I Started off doing this and I found that there's lots of help out there Just doing a quick YouTube search for a z brush sculpting yields about 75,000 results This is a little bit older. So it might be a little higher than that Glendar sculpting is 114,000 results Maya modeling 180,000 so we have lots and lots of data out there hundreds to thousands of books teaching Modeling we have websites that are dedicated to teach you modeling and sculpting and all the principles This is all great, but the medium that they're working in is is still rather challenging Most video tutorials that I found were really bad a lot of them they rambled they they they trailed off There was lots of details or mess ups and then they would undo Sometimes they were rather hard to follow Document tutorials like in books can be hard to follow if if they have a Couple of snapshots and some textual annotation between to say what they did to modify the mesh Well, if if you weren't in there if it was poorly stage shot you miss some details potentially Also another kind of interesting thing about videos is our time lapses So recording the artist records themselves working and they just plays it back full speed But this is not very helpful for me to learn to become a better artist So this led me down the path of my dissertation The title of its mod flows methods for studying and managing mesh editing workflows So of this of my dissertation there were basically four sections I'm going to just talk about two papers Mesh flow and mesh get hence The rather strange title to my talk which is regular expression if if you're at all familiar with with that So I'll start off by talking about mesh flow Just to kind of practice this all this all this is available on my website I'll post at the very end so if you are interested in the details You can certainly go and check out the papers. I will have some videos all the source code is released GPL So that too is available But this talk since this is blender conference. I didn't know how many developers would be here probably more artists I tried to stick more to lots of pictures And left most of the technical details out So mesh flow is one of the papers Had published at SIGGRAPH 2011 Subtitled interactive visualization of mesh instruction sequences Make sure my time Okay So my son Loves dinosaurs. This is one of his favorite books in this book It shows how to draw different dinosaurs and the one thing that's great about this is it You have this kind of interesting dinosaur down here, but it gives you step-by-step You know how to construct this we're going from one step to another They add in these little details down at the bottom to say okay from the previous picture Here's some here's some features to look for so there's some annotations Kind of help you figure out what change because as you can see when it gets a little more detailed The little additions are kind of hard to find So this is interesting from point of view of a five-year-old child wanting to draw dinosaurs But how does this apply to meshes? I'm going to use this biped as an example. It's it's It's okay, but this would be where we start so one way to To understand how to create this is to watch a video tutorial. I'm not going to play any audio This is Jonathan Williamson a few years ago So in here Jonathan describes the process of creating this this biped And along the process here it he gives details on how to use the blender interface So we go step-by-step. He gives very good


Welcome to EGU 22, Europe's largest year science event. For the first time, the annual EGU General Assembly is in hybrid format, allowing both in-person and online participation. After a two-year absence, we're glad to be able to meet so many of you in Vienna again and also welcome thousands of scientists from around the world joining us online to share and discuss research in the Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences. EGU promotes Earth, Planetary and Space Sciences through awards, education, outreach projects and policy recommendations. EGU is a bottom-up organization giving our members a strong voice in the Union's direction and activities. That's why, after the last two years online meetings, we considered your feedback and incorporated it into our plans for the future. Taking the first step in our journey to a new fully hybrid General Assembly format. This year's meeting format was also developed taking into account the changing pandemic situation and our desire to put the health and safety of our attendees first. We have improved last year's online platform whilst bringing back many of the in-person features that you told us you missed. You will notice a lot of changes in Vienna as we are working hard to keep our attendees safe and we thank all attendees for doing their bit to protect their fellow researchers by following our COVID-19 safety restrictions. Although we are sorry not to have the poster and V-Pico formats this year as part of our required hygiene plan, we are excited to see all the amazing science that you will share using the short oral presentations and through your online display materials. We've designed this year's format, the online platform, as well as the in-person representation of the scientific session to help promote scientific discussion and spark new ideas while also promoting inclusivity and equal accessibility for all participants as much as possible within the current circumstances. We hope you set aside enough time during this week to fully engage your colleagues and to explore the many additional activities we are offering. As well as all the scientific sessions, our volunteers and staff together with our conference partner Copernicus have once again worked extremely hard to bring you a wide range of additional activities and networking events to help you find and build your community. Make sure you take advantage of these different activities such as the short courses, the EGU Art Booth and the Data Help Desk as well as dozens of medals and award lectures that will showcase the latest research and give you chance to be part of the conversation. As a bottom-up volunteer-led organisation, our community is key. Your participation in EGU together with your feedback will help us build a legacy that enables equality of opportunities for all geoscientists and helps us fulfil our mission of realising a sustainable and just future for humanity and planet Earth.


Good morning lab students. Here's your announcements for Friday April 24th. We are very close to the end You just need to hang in a little bit longer I know this has been very challenging suddenly doing an online lab when that's not what you were thinking you were going to Be doing and not necessarily having access to all the resources as We get here towards the end of the semester. I'm going to be posting a lot more announcements on blackboards So please pay attention to those announcements. Again, the official announcements from blackboard always go to your official university email and Also, just checking because some of the information I may not set it as Sending it to your email, but it will be posted on blackboard So the next time you log into blackboard, just make sure you double check that you've actually looked at all the announcements Lab number 11 is the current one that's up and running When you guys get done with that one, that will be the last lab We still have the final exam and for some of you There's still some work that you can get turned in that you hadn't turned in already as We get towards the end of the semester. I'm going to send out individual messages to each student letting you know where you're sitting at with your grade and What sort of the lowest and highest possible grades that you're looking at depending on what work you get done and How you do on the final exam? There will be a final exam and no one is exempt from it Although a few of you may find that at the end of the semester you actually have just enough points to Not have to take the final exam Most of you will need to at least score some points on the final exam to get the grade that you would like to get Again, I will be posting a lot more detailed information on blackboard here within the next few days So if you have any questions, please contact me some of you have been doing a really good job about contacting me either when you have a difficulty with some of the technology or a question about how to answer one of the lab questions and I encourage you to continue to work with me and communicate with me some of you I have not heard from in weeks and so I really need you to contact me and start getting what you need done and Move forward so we can finish off the semester as strongly as possible Hope you have a good day, and I look forward to hearing from you soon