Hello, everybody. Welcome back to another AI video. In this one, I want to show you how to do video face swapping, and I'm going to show you how to do it for free. That's right. This is free AI at the moment. There's no cost to this. And you'll see here that I've got the Leonardo DiCaprio, but I've kind of spliced them in with Tom Cruise. And yeah, it's done a pretty good job. It's free. It's also like two clicks. That's all you need to do. So enough of the talk. Let's get right into this. The first step, and I'll show you right here, is you want to go to Swapface.org. So I'm just going to put this, I'm going to put a link in the description, Swapface.org. You'll see here that I'm on there. When you do that, you'll see that it's got download for Windows. This only currently works on Windows. It doesn't work on Mac. If you want to use a Mac, I'll show you in another video, another tool that will work for that. This is PC only at the moment. Okay, once you've downloaded it, again, keep in mind that it's totally free for now.  And once it's installed, you're going to see this right here. This is the program. So it starts off on stream face swap.  But in this one, and it also does picture face swap as well. But for this one, we're going to do video face swap. Once you're logged in, you'll see a whole bunch of options like uploading your own video, which works great. But for this tutorial, I just want to show you really quickly how to do it. And then I'll let you guys play around with it, of course later. So for this one, I'm going to select one of these pre-built ones. I'm going to click on the infamous Leonardo DiCaprio, great Gatsby thing going on here. And then when I do that, it allows me to pick a face to swap.  Let's swap out Toby. Okay. So we're going to swap out Toby McGuire. I'm going to click choose and then on the left side. So we've selected the video and you'll see it's here. On the right side, we could choose one of the models. Now, these models over here are default models that come with it. But you'll see here and where this gets really interesting is you can upload your own model. So what I've done is I've uploaded an image of Madonna now and she looks like an alien. She looks like the dude from Saw, the clown mask guy. I've got Tom Cruise. I've got Jason Momoa. All you got to do is click on upload and pick an image if that's what you want. I've already done that. So here we go. We're going to go with Tom Cruise for this one. And then at the bottom, you're going to see, we're replacing Toby McGuire with Tom Cruise. And once you do that, that's literally all there is to it. Now you get two choices, fast mode and pro mode. I'm going to go ahead and select pro mode, but do note that it does recommend having a 3000 plus Nvidia card for this. I've only got a 2080 Ultra or something like that, but it's not too bad. So I'm going to click on OK and then it's going to load and now I'm going to hit start and watch this. It's going to tell me approximately how long it's going to take. So I need to know how long I can go take my dog out for a walk. So it's going to say, it's going to take like usually takes about five or six minutes, but anyways, when it's done, OK, wow, that was fast because he's only in it for five seconds. OK, even better. It's a 17 second clip. So I'll just stay on the line here and here we go. I'll come back when it's done in like 10 seconds. All right, it's done. So here we go. We're going to click on open and it's going to take me to where it saved it on my drive. I'm going to double click on it and let's see what we got. We got Leonardo doing this thing. We got Tom Cruise. Look at that. That was pretty good. It's not great, but it's not too bad. It's really good for free if you ask me. So anyways, guys, that's how you do it. Free software, free AI. Thanks for watching.


Next question is from Culeo Cullen 1. While bulking on a three-time per week workout routine, should we eat in a surplus on off days as well? You know what'll simplify this for a lot of people is in generally speaking look at your calories from a weekly basis. Now you can't get too extreme with this. You know what I mean by that is if you're you know four days out of a week you're in a deficit and I got to make up for it the last three days that could make things a little bit unhealthy but look at it from a weekly perspective. Ultimately you want to be in a surplus by the end of the week so if you're at a maintenance or a deficit three days a week could you end up at a surplus for the week if the other four days you eat you know and a decent surplus you totally could. This is how I tend to eat and mainly because this mimics real life more than eating the same thing every single day.  It's probably gonna be easier for you that way. Only problem with that is then transitioning from that to real life. Real life the way we eat is not the same every single day and in some days you're gonna eat a little less and some days you're gonna eat a little bit more but ultimately at the end of the day if you want to build muscle and you want to gain weight you're trying to bulk you have to end at a surplus for the week. It doesn't work if you don't do that. It depends on the person I'm talking to so if I have a client who really struggles to put weight on and and the bulk is more difficult then we are probably talking about trying trying to be in a surplus every day and the reason why that is because it's hard for them to be in a surplus every day and I know it's inevitable probably missed some days and so I'm probably pushing the client who struggles to bulk struggles to put weight on so that they like the hardgainer right the skinny kid right he that the kid that I was right I'm pushing that kid to probably eat in a surplus every single day knowing that some days we might miss to Salis point because I know at the end of the week I need to definitely add up flip that with somebody else somebody who let's say puts on body fat really quick and that person I would prefer to go what Salis saying where I have you know three days like the training days I like to have those really heavy and hard calorie days just because they're moving and they're exercising or hopefully most of those calories and get partitioned over to build muscle and then I'll have lower days on the days when they're not exercising just because it's easier that way they don't need as much fuel and energy because they're not working out and again it's it mimics more like real life of the up and down so and I do think you can you can be in a weekly or monthly bulk but still have low calorie days I think people don't understand that it's it's okay to do that you don't just and this was a fear I had as a young kid thinking like oh my god I had a day or two of low calories muscle just fell off my body it doesn't work that way whatsoever in fact it's probably healthy for us to have a day or two where you're under calories even though you're in a bulk a day or two in the week where you're under calories but then you're an even bigger surplus on the other day so I prefer that for health for the a person to put a lean bulk you know that doesn't have a hard time with adding calories but if I'm talking to the hardgainer or the skinny kid I'm probably trying to get him to eat as much as I can every single day.


Hi, I'm Beau Broadbeck, extension specialist in community forestry and arboriculture with the Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Today we're going to review some basic chainsaw safety considerations from ensuring your saw is in working order to wearing the proper safety gear. While many of us own chainsaws and enjoy their efficiency for cutting firewood or removing debris after storms, it's easy to forget that if improperly operated they can be extremely dangerous and even life threatening. Learn by making sure all the safety features on your saw are present and in good working order. Second, make sure your saw is well maintained. Ensure that the chain is sharp, dull chains decrease cutting efficiency and make operators work harder. Check that the bar oil reservoir is filled with manufacturer recommended oil, no motor oil please. Finally, check that the fuel mixture is to manufacturer specifications, usually a 50 to 1 ratio. Just ensure you are wearing the following personal protective equipment or PPE as it could very well save your life. Wear sturdy boots and chainsaw chaps. More than 40% of injuries occur on the left leg or foot. This alone could prevent an injury. Also, make sure to wear a hard hat to protect your head from falling objects that might be dislodged from the trees you are working on.  Chainsaws are loud and we want to be able to hear our children or grandchildren. Put on your safety glasses. Just kick up debris that can easily scratch your eyes and damage your vision. Finally, gloves are highly recommended and should always be worn when sharpening the chainsaw. For more safety tips and instructional videos, visit the Alabama Extension website at www.aces.edu. To keep you safe, next time you start that chainsaw.


So if we now apply this to a real protein, let's show you one, what happens when a protein inserts depending both on the protein and the lipid environment, we might have this, you could imagine that the lipid is a relatively rigid environment and in that case we would have this scenario that the protein would adapt to fit the bilayer. Do you see here how all those helices are tilting a bit? In fact, tilting helices is great for packing helices. That has to do with the way the side chains are organized in an alpha helix. If you put them in a parallel fashion, side chains would in general bump into each other, but if they're slightly tilted, the ridges of one helix will fit into the grooves of another helix. And here the lipid environment might actually help that. The other alternative is that the protein is quite rigid. If the protein is quite rigid, we would rather end up on the right where we have the lipids, the membrane will adapt to fit the protein. It turns out that if we now have the protein undergo a conformational transition, for instance with changing pH, changing pressure or something, this way we could actually either have the cell influence say a protein to open a channel or something, or a protein influence a membrane say start to bend the membrane, which is how we achieve a whole lot of functionality in the cell. So in general, these properties are true. The only question is how Anthony, Kylian and others were able to study them.


Our speaker this evening is extremely well placed to speak about the challenges, the complexities of American foreign policy and American security policy broadly defined. So Laura Rosenberger is here as a Vice Chancellor's Distinguished Visiting Fellow which is a unique arrangement here at the National Security College where we're really privileged to bring eminent and expert voices from overseas to engage with the Australian policy debate. Laura in her day job I guess is currently the Director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy which is a bipartisan initiative under the the German Marshall Fund, a prominent think tank in Washington. She has a career which I guess goes back to the post 9-11 era and indeed Laura began her national security and policy career in fact during the Bush administration but during that very very busy and turbulent period of time since then Laura has worked in the State Department, she's worked in roles in the National Security Council of the White House as well. Most recently before moving into the world of think tanks Laura served as Foreign Policy and Security Advisor in the 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton and that's a story to which perhaps I'm sure she will tell you a little about insights into the way that ended and of course the lessons that hold for the present day. Laura Rosenberger is a very close friend of the Australia-US relationship, she's worked on Asian or Indo-Pacific issues during her time in government and follows those very closely and I think has taken quite an interest in issues around the resilience of Australian democracy while she's here. We will take some questions after a Laura's presentation and of course just a reminder the event is on the public record so please keep your phones on silent but don't hesitate to tweet and engage in the conversation. So please join me now in welcoming Laura Rosenberger. Well thank you Rory for that very kind introduction. Thanks of course to the National Security College for hosting me as well as to the Vice Chancellor for hosting me here at ANU and thanks to all of you for giving your evenings to be here for this conversation. I'm going to start as Rory said with about maybe 20 minutes of remarks but I thought it would be particularly a good opportunity on this topic to have some back and forth so be thinking of questions as I go along. I don't need to tell you all that we live in an era of disruption and in the United States while certainly we feel that Donald Trump is one of those disruptive forces it's very important for us to remember that he is not the cause of those disruptions. Rising authoritarianism, transformative technologies, growing nationalism fueled in part by dislocation, increasing wealth gaps all of these forces are putting strains on the post-war war two international system. The damage that Donald Trump is doing to America's leadership abroad is compounding our ability to deal with these many disruptive forces, hampering America's ability to respond in a smart and strategic way that positions us to meet the challenges of the future. These are all forces that Democrats must contend with as they begin articulating their foreign policy agendas for the 2020 campaign and beyond. Any successful foreign policy vision can't just seek to repair the damage there is no going back to how things were or to simply respond to Trump. The reality is that regardless of Trump major reforms to the international system would have been necessary and while what I'm laying out today is a sense of where I think Democrats are going and should go on foreign policy I come at national security with the belief that it should not be a partisan issue. As you heard from Rory I spent many of my years in government as a career civil servant under administrations from both parties. I remain hopeful that Trump is a temporary outlier and I will speak to this in greater detail and I believe that we can restore a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy in the United States. I believe it's especially important as our adversaries have demonstrated how powerful the ability to divide us is in terms of weakening America. Standing together is actually of strategic importance for the United States and so what I'm speaking about today is framed as a democratic foreign policy it is not based on politics but on American interests. I also just reflecting on 2016 think it's important to underscore that Trump was elected not because of his foreign policy but despite it. If we go back to exit polls Hillary was 53-42 on the question of who would better handle foreign policy. 49 percent thought she would be a better commander in chief to Trump's 46 but critically only 13 percent said foreign policy was the most important issue facing the country and this lack of emphasis among American voters on foreign policy has continued. A forthcoming study from the Center for American Progress found that 65 percent of Americans don't think foreign policy decisions by the government matter to their lives. A figure that is consistent roughly across all demographic groups. That disconnect and I say this with great humility is a result of a failure of foreign policy professionals like me to speak about American foreign policy and the importance of American leadership in terms that resonate with the voting public. So it will be critical for Democrats to find ways to talk about foreign policy in a manner that connects with people's lives. Trump has challenged conventional foreign policy in ways that scholars and practitioners find deeply disturbing but he has a clear narrative. For Americans they will look around and see that for all the warnings of the apocalypse resulting from Trump's approach to foreign policy it hasn't come. The damage of course that is being done is significant and everyone in this room knows that and it is compounding. But for many Americans the damage is being done quote over there and it is not visible to many at home. The good news is that because this is an issue that is not particularly salient for voters and one on which they are broadly not terribly familiar with the details it is one where leadership can have an enormous impact and so it is incumbent upon Democratic foreign policy analysts and candidates in the 2020 race to articulate an agenda for strong leadership backed by a strong narrative. So turning to the 2020 race it's very early. Many candidates don't have a significant record on foreign policy and in fact some candidates haven't yet even entered the race and I should say upfront that I do not expect foreign policy to be a significant driver of the campaign itself but it will be a defining issue for the next president. So against that backdrop let me address the areas I see as emerging consensus among candidates and leading democratic foreign policy analysts, areas where there is a potential divergence and areas where I think it will be critical for a successful post-Trump foreign policy that require more focused attention than they've seen to date. First the democratic struggle against authoritarianism will be a defining feature of the next several decades. The idea that strengthening democracy needs to be central to any democratic foreign policy is emerging as the earliest area of consensus amongst democratic candidates running in the 2020 race and of leading foreign policy thinkers in the Democratic Party. This consensus is born out of recognition of the damage that Trump is doing to American democracy at home and concerns about growing authoritarianism around the world and the fact that that poses a direct threat to the U.S. way of life. It reflects concerns about Russia's attacks on our democracy and of our allies and of concerns about techno-authoritarianism being developed by the Chinese Communist Party. And it reflects concerns about a liberal slides within some of our allies including with the NATO. The centrality of democracy to foreign policy has already been articulated by a number of leading voices. The Center for American Progress has proposed putting democratic values at the core of democratic foreign policy underscoring that doing so is inherently in America's interests. My colleague Jake Sullivan who was policy director on Hillary's campaign also made an eloquent case for this in a recent article in The Atlantic arguing that the core purpose of American foreign policy must be to protect and defend the American way of life. This thinking is also reflected in the new Democratic House of Representatives where the first bill to pass the House was HR1 which focused on a number of measures to strengthen democratic resilience at home and around the world. And in that sense there's a recognition that democracy is not only central to foreign policy but is also a bedrock matter of national security. A renewed focus on the importance of democracy is to our security is perhaps overdone but as the campaign season heats up it will be critical for Democrats to continue to respond to democratic recession at home in ways that strengthen democracy and not allow partisan interests to drive a further weakening of institutions in the name of political gains. Doing so would not only weaken us but it would set a dangerous precedent for other democracies fighting the liberal forces from within or authoritarian forces from without and it would play directly into authoritarian hands. Related to a focus on democracy is a focus on countering kleptocracy and corruption and there is a consensus on the need to combat it. This concern is taking a number of different forms across the Democratic Party with some candidates particularly focused on corporate corruption and others focused more on oligarchs and the way that autocrats are using these tools to hold power. Authoritarian forces like the Russian government and the Chinese Communist Party have weaponized corruption to facilitate interference in democracies. Strengthening our systems against these tools will be critical to strengthening our democracies from within and denying authoritarians a weapon of choice. Technology is another area where we have seen a weaponization of tools against democracy but also a potential to actually strengthen our democracy and it is sure to be a robust topic on the campaign trail. I believe a debate around technology policy is long overdue in the United States. Right now other global actors are setting the tech agenda particularly around data. If the U.S. wants to ensure that information technology continues to grow in a manner that supports democracy and that we remain competitive at the same time it's long overdue for us to step up. But to date much of the conversation has revolved primarily around battles of the past around issues of social media and around frameworks of data which by the way in the United States we don't have yet so we desperately need but we've got to actually start looking forward. Issues of AI are urgently in need of serious substantive conversation whether on facial recognition, ethics or competitiveness. More broadly as we look out over the next several decades these technological trends combined with rising authoritarianism mean competition and conflict will increasingly play out in new domains and battle spaces. We need to be investing in the right kinds of capabilities for the 21st century. Much of this starts with enhancing our own domestic competitiveness and the good news is that Americans broadly support an agenda of investing at home. It also means retiring outdated systems and updating strategies and doctrines to reflect the challenges of the future. It also means updating and rebuilding our institutions to meet the needs of the 21st century. President Trump and his administration are doing enormous damage to our institutions of government at home including the State Department where I spent much of my career. The hollowing out of talent will have a long-term impact but Democrats should seize the opportunity to not just rebuild but reinvigorate the institutions of government to face the challenges of the future. Among other things this means being more nimble and enabling cross-cutting collaboration, breaking down silos and creating better pathways for collaboration between the public and private sectors. Of course ensuring our competitiveness and the centrality of values is no more important on any issue than China where there is a bipartisan consensus on the need for a tougher approach. But what we see from the Trump administration I would argue is not a strategy. His narrow focus on tariffs undermines our ability to tackle other critical issues. And in that sense there's a major opportunity for Democratic candidates to define a smarter and tough approach that is comprehensive in dealing with a rising China that is threatening core principles of the global order. And of course that starts with our allies. Now I expect Russia to be a significant topic of debate in Washington. I'm happy to take questions on the Mueller report but I will largely leave those for Q&A. But there's no question that debate in Washington will be revolving around partisan agendas in the Russia context at least in the months ahead. But I would note that to date the issue of Russia and of the Mueller report has not come up much on the campaign trail and it does not appear to be an issue that is driving voters. And I believe it's critical that Democrats refrain from making Russia and particularly its attacks on our democracy a partisan issue or frankly more partisan than it already is. Doing so would play right into Putin's hands. The threat Russia poses to the United States and our allies is real and more than two years after the 2016 election we have done very little to harden our defenses or deter future acts of aggression from Russia. This has implications of course not just for Russia but for countries like China where in your country and right here in Australia the issue of foreign interference is also a major concern. There will be other drivers that are sure to be injected into the debate as the 2020 campaign unfolds. Immigration of course is one of Trump's central agendas and one where Democrats have taken a strong stand in opposition to his cruel encounter productive approach. Looking back at 2016 the only national security issue on which Trump pulled higher than Hillary in the exits was on international terrorism which dominated much of the campaign discussion as ISIS launched a series of external attacks and grew its territorial presence in Iraq and Syria. In 2020 I don't expect international terrorism to be as much of a campaign trail conversation but I believe we also face a different kind of terrorism a nationalist driven domestic domestic rooted terrorism. Australia and New Zealand experienced this tragically less than two weeks ago. I am from the city of Pittsburgh and I have prayed and worshipped in the congregation of Tree of Life so for me this is also personal. I believe it is past time for the national security community to address the rise of white nationalism and domestic terrorism as forcefully as we have other forms of terrorism and as Christchurch underscores international cooperation on these threats will be critical but even if global terrorism is not a major focus in this campaign cycle the reality is that America along with Australia and many of our allies still has troops in Afghanistan fighting what many now shorthand is the forever war. A number of candidates have already pledged to end that troop commitment and in an odd alignment earlier this year a number of Democrats including several who are running for president voted against against a congressional resolution rebuking Trump's decision which he has since amended to abruptly withdraw troops from both Syria and Afghanistan. So while I think it's important that we find a way to wind down these conflicts I'm all too familiar with the fact that it's easier to pledge to do so than to actually do so and I certainly hope that the candidates pledging this will back up simplistic campaign trail promises with an actual concrete plan. Climate change is of course an issue that's particularly important for younger voters and Democrats have a strong case to make for both the restoration of American leadership on this issue and for strong investments at home. The Green New Deal is just one example of the creative thinking being done within the party on ways to connect sound climate policy with smart domestic policy. Of course there are areas of disagreement within the party with trade being the most significant one. Unfortunately within the Democratic party we have still not made a case for free trade that resonates with the American people. The Obama administration made a mistake on TPP and I say this as someone who was part of that effort by making the case based on strategic issues and not connecting it to people's lives at home. We can't base our case on trade on abstract issues we have to root it back to their lives and on top of that we've still not provided Americans with the relief needed for real job displacement. The reality is that many of the ills Americans ascribe to trade are not actually caused by trade. Automation for instance plays a bigger role in job dislocation in many cases. A situation that's only going to get worse with the advent of autonomous vehicles and other forms of AI. But until we invest at home to address the underlying causes of these anxieties we are not going to be able to successfully make the case for a free trade agenda one that I believe is critical to ensuring a rules-based international system that is essential for American competitiveness. Now much of what I've outlined here involves strengthening ourselves at home and I do believe that the adage that a strong foreign policy starts at home has never been more true and has never been more critical for Democratic candidates to make a strong foreign policy case. But while it may start at home a strong foreign policy cannot end at home. It would be a mistake to think that we can strengthen ourselves at home without leading outside of our borders. And the reality is that with consensus on the need to defend democracy and push back on authoritarianism this cannot be achieved without robust international engagement. America's retreat from global spaces has been authoritarian's greatest boon. The vacuum we have left has allowed others to fill it. Now allies like Australia has stepped into the breach playing an important role working with others like Japan and India to uphold core elements of the international rules based order particularly here in the Indo-Pacific. And as we contend with an increasingly multi-polar world the role of our allies in shaping global rules and norms will remain critical even with the restoration of U.S. leadership. But as Australia's foreign policy white paper notes American leadership is critical to sustaining rules and norms. So in this time of disruption U.S. global leadership has perhaps never been more important. Ensuring that as institutions change they recognize a more multi-polar world we will need to rebuild institutions to manage new technologies and ensure that they do this in a rules-based way recognizing democratic values and all of that requires robust engagement from the United States. It requires us to recognize the new ways in which power is being exercised and therefore to exercise new forms of global leadership to show up in the spaces where power is being contested. In particular it's clear that a unilateral American approach which we have seen under the Trump administration leads to a world in which American power is diminished and that a multi-polar approach will be even more important, a multilateral approach will be even more important in a multi-pillar world. It will be critical for democratic candidates to make this case for American global leadership. The good news is that despite assumptions that Americans overall are more isolationist today and less willing to engage in the world the forthcoming study I mentioned from the Center for American Progress found that Americans favor a form of what they've dubbed restrained engagement preferring the use of diplomatic political and economic channels over military action in advancing U.S. interest with few supporting isolationism. But sustaining support for American global leadership and international engagement will require concerted effort by our leaders to build a narrative around why it matters. Let me end on a perhaps personal and hopefully not overly cliche note but one of America's greatest sources of power has always been the idea of America and one of the most harmful things that Donald Trump has done to American power is to shake that idea upending the values that are the core of who we are diminishing our power and harming our credibility. We need American leadership that does our best to live our values recognizes our failings and self-corrects stands with our friends and serves as a reliable partner for our allies and so simply put one of the most important tasks for a successful democratic foreign policy is to restore the attractiveness of America. Thank you very much. Stick around. We've I think you've really just begun the conversation in many ways because there are there are many points in those remarks where I think colleagues and friends in the room will have questions. I've got my own questions which I'll maybe come to you with shortly but let's let's open it up to the group straight away please. Wow this is this is this is good. Please confine yourself to one question each and try to make it a nice succinct question rather than a speech. So I'm going to begin right over on my far left with the young woman over here. There's a microphone that will find its way to you and I'll work I'll work from from this side to that side. Thank you. Thank you for that. I just wanted to know if you could please comment on the Mueller report over the weekend. There we go and and and and also I'll ask all of the speakers just to introduce themselves as you or the question is to introduce themselves so thank you. My name is Tamara Bab. I'm currently studying Masters of International Security Law and that's why I'm so interested in this speech. Fantastic. Thank you so much. So I think one of the most important takeaways from what we know of the Mueller report which is to date still a summary of the overall report for me from the national security national security perspective is the reaffirmation of the findings from the investigation about the core components of Russia's attacks on our democracy. The summary lays out the main vectors that Russia used a campaign around social media the hacking of the DNC and several campaign officials and the use of those in order to undermine Hillary's candidacy and to help President Trump. We also know of course from several other investigations including the international I'm sorry the intelligence community assessment a bipartisan investigation by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee as well as several subsequent indictments that have been brought by other parts of the Department of Justice laying out additional elements of Russia's interference in American democracy. For me that's the most important takeaway from the Mueller investigation is a unanimous and absolutely clear finding of what Russia has done and what I would add is continues to do and so for me right now I am disappointed by what I see as a perhaps not surprisingly partisan reaction to the conclusions of the investigation when I think you know understanding in fact as I mentioned that one of the core strategies of Russia's efforts is to divide us this is precisely the time that we need to be coming together as we look forward to the 2020 campaign and the 2020 election it would appear to me that Russia has received no message of clear deterrence. There's been very little consequence for its activities and many of the very clear known vulnerabilities in our democracy that have been exposed through these activities have not been addressed. It's frankly a significant contrast I think to the response here in Australia where you've had a very bipartisan response to countering foreign interference against your own democracy. So as I look forward to 2020 I think it's absolutely critical that our leadership comes together in this moment recognizing the very direct national security threat that we face. There are bipartisan pieces of legislation that have been introduced in Congress that would be quite easy to pass if simply there were the political will. Thank you and we'll go to this gentleman here and we'll keep moving that direction. My name is John Angley but my question is back to the authoritarianism issue. Your your a speech I can't disagree with any you said about China and Russia but it also highlights that second point I always strikes me the inconsistency of the US attitude to authoritarianism. You've got authoritarian regimes you put up with like in the Middle East Saudi Arabia so that I think undermines your that kind of apparently selective attitude to authoritarianism. It really undermines the broader opposition to authoritarianism and it just continues on. So you're asking for a comment on that if you like. The question is you know is will it ever be broader than just your main two competitors who are both authoritarian Russia and China and would you see that changing you know in the following debate. Yeah I think so far what we've seen at least from I mean I'll speak to what I'm seeing in sort of the broader democratic conversation and then I can speak to my own views but certainly as I mentioned the sort of idea of putting democracy very core at the center of a democratic foreign policy or national security policy is is pretty much across the entire spectrum of democratic candidates from the most progressive to the most centrist and pretty much all of the leading voices within the Democratic Party have really come out and talked about the need for a you know democratic values based foreign policy. I think there is a recognition that the inconsistencies that you mentioned do hurt us and so there is really a focus on ensuring that that approach is very clear and consistent. You know I completely agree with you that when it comes to credibility it's it's you know very damaging when we are not consistent in our approach. That's not to that's not to argue that there aren't you know difficult trade-offs sometimes involved in in those in those calculus but I think it's one where consistency is absolutely necessary and when frankly we face a world right now where the slides of a liberalism are beginning to occur within our own alliance structures where we have several NATO allies as I mentioned where democracy is really quite in question. I think it really underscores the importance of actually holding quite firm in in our in our values on that front. Thank you. Do you have any other questions in this corner over here? So I'll take this gentleman at the back. Thank you. Good evening my name is Sorana I'm from Cambodia and I'm a master's student from the master of diplomacy and I got a question regarding the domestic affairs of the U.S. politics. As for your personal view do you think Donald Trump should be impeached? And why and why not? Thank you very much. No no no no here's what I would say. I think impeachment number one is largely it is entirely actually a political decision it's not a legal decision whatsoever. Number one. Number two I am quite focused right now on what is the best way to strengthen American democracy and prevent our institutions from being further weakened and I am quite concerned that the potential of I'm quite concerned about the potential for impeachment proceedings to do further damage to America's institutions of democracy. I believe in our resiliency and I believe that if we can make a very strong case to voters that we can actually come out stronger at home with actually strengthened institutions than we would if we were to proceed with impeachment. So I'll take this question from this gentleman here and then we'll move to the middle block thank you. I'm sorry we'll come back to you if we have time. Ben Ashion in post doc researcher here at the Crawford school. So my question relates specifically to China and the rise of China and so it's clear that you see China as a threat but I want to ask you to elaborate you know more specifically like how and in what ways so is it the nature of the Chinese Communist Party itself, specific goals it holds, specific actions it's taken and are you suggesting that cooperation with China is possibly no longer feasible and also the timing of this like has this there seems to be an intensification in US attitudes towards China with you know since Mike Pence's speech at the Hudson Institute that there seems to be a more stronger approach towards China out of the United States these days but is this a recent phenomenon or something you see that's come? It's a lot of different components to that question so I'm going to do my best to address them. Look number one I think the US approach to China has been getting probably tougher for some time I've frequently told folks that if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016 a tougher approach to China would have certainly followed suit it would look different than what we see now but there's no question that we were headed in this direction so that's point one. Point two is cooperation with China on a whole host of issues is going to remain absolutely essential it's not this is not a binary you know there there are so many issues on which cooperation with China on which you know collaboration in some ways on problem solving is absolutely essential but what I do believe is that we see we see under Xi Jinping's leadership in particular an increased assertiveness and willingness to challenge rules and norms and to weaken them and then remake them in a way that is favorable to China and that is what I believe is unfavorable to the international peace prosperity stability particularly in this region but also globally I think that I'm deeply concerned by whole host of non-transparent kinds of tactics coercive measures that I think are not conducive to an international rules-based system that is the kind that I believe will actually continue to preserve peace prosperity and stability for Americans, for Australians, for you know throughout the throughout the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. Can I just push you a little bit further on the technology dimension of that because I think looking globally at US-China competition clearly there's this contest for the commanding heights of the new technologies and places like this university are part of that story. American universities are part of that story so I just wonder if you can talk about really the what appears to be a sea change and thinking politically in the US at the moment about the private sector the academic sector in the US-China competition. Yeah I think particularly when it comes to technology the United States and many of our allies have seen a whole host of cases of industrial espionage of theft of intellectual intellectual property and trade secrets obviously sometimes that's cyber-enabled sometimes that's through research collaboration sometimes that's through more traditional forms of espionage in private sector companies. The United States has taken several steps recently in terms of foreign investment screening to strengthen those controls on the technology sector which were not previously included in our investment screening procedures as well as to look at the reviews of our export controls in order to ensure that technologies that could potentially be dual use are actually captured as such. I think that the challenge for any open society and the democratic society is to protect these technological areas where I think it's not just about economic competitiveness it's also about genuine security risk to protect those sectors while also ensuring that we don't enable a closing off of ourselves or in any way in any way engage in kind of xenophobia about that you know in the manner in which we do that. But I think the reality is particularly when we look at technologies like AI where the PRC has invested heavily in a real whole of nation approach you know there is an enormous potential for a competitiveness gap for the United States and we will face some trade-offs in thinking about how to take steps to protect our own ability to develop our technology and to do so in a way that is consistent with democracy and our values without harming our competitiveness by cutting out contacts and I think this is actually one of the most important and areas where real nuance is required in how we think about it and making sure that we weigh all of the trade-offs appropriately. Thank you. We'll take another question from the group in the middle here this is getting really lively. We'll start with the woman at the front and then we'll move back. Thank you. All right Rachel Warner I look after the Middle East and Afghanistan in defence so my question is related to Afghanistan and we know that we're currently negotiating basically the Taliban and the Afghan government about what the future is going to look like. How far do you think President Trump would go and how unpalatable is that likely to be to the international community to meet his commitments of getting Afghanistan troops out quickly? So I've made it a policy in the past two years to never try to speculate on anything President Trump will or will not do. That being said you know I think number one it's pretty clear that he this is a commitment that he wants to fulfill. It will be something that is important to his base for him to be able to tell them that he's done and therefore I think there's potential for him to make any range of unpalatable decisions or decisions that are unpalatable to the broader international community. That being said I think this is one area where bureaucratic inertia is important. I think the Defense Department does have a good bit of sway on thinking throughout the administration on this. Now that is shifting. We of course still have we don't have a confirmed Secretary of Defense. We don't even have a nominee for Secretary of Defense. We also don't have a permanent Chief of Staff at the White House. So there's a whole host of reasons where I would be cautious about where this may head but I think well I guess I think there's a range of possibilities but I ultimately think that it will end up in a space where President Trump can proclaim victory. Now look we've also found that he's sometimes willing to proclaim victory even if he hasn't actually done what he says he's done. So you know there's all kinds of ways that you can call troops other things and we've done that actually previously and so is there a way that he can talk about you know bringing the troops home maybe while still having you know a presence there under a different name possibly. So I think there's a whole range of possibilities so that was a lot of speculating on not speculating. We'll take a question at the back the woman at the back and then the gentleman behind her. Thank you. You've critiqued partisanship within the US political system. Do you think that the post-Trump foreign policy era should have a concerted focus on creating a bipartisan message to the world? Yes. Yes I would very much I would very much hope to do that. I mean look there's I'm not like so naive to think that this is something that we can do in sort of every corner of the foreign policy space. Issues like defense spending for instance are always going to come under partisan disagreement but are there some broad principles and consensus that we can reaffirm? I think so and I think if we lift the hood a little bit actually on the foreign policy conversation in Washington as I said I hope President Trump is an outlier. In fact if you look at some of the most unanimous or close to unanimous votes in Congress over the past few years have been on foreign policy issues and so I actually think that there is still more bipartisanship on foreign policy in most areas than there actually appears to be on the surface and that does give me some hope. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Michael. Yeah I'm a second year undergrad here at A&U. So my question is on technology as well. So Brett Smith the president of Microsoft was here this morning and he talked about how Microsoft is trying to take the lead in calling for regulations on technologies like facial recognition and autonomous weapons. But since the privacy fiasco last year the tech industry has been a favorite target of Democrats and Republicans alike. So do you think under a democratic administration in 2021 and beyond there's any chance of a Democrat in the White House working with companies that are trying to be proactive in creating some sort of rule-based regime technology like autonomous weapons or do you think there's no chance at all. Thank you. A lot of questions. Thank you. So I think that when it comes to technology and technology policy and ensuring American competitiveness and ensuring ethics around technological development and all of these issues that there is nothing that the government can do alone on this and that it is inherently it will inherently require cooperation between the government and the private sector. I was at the White House during the Stone revelations and I watched the relationship with Silicon Valley come crashing down and of course during the encryption debates that we had in the United States a few years later that that tension in their relationship only only was further entrenched. So there's an enormous amount of distrust frankly on both sides of the sort of public and private space. So I think that it's incumbent on government to figure out ways to work with the private sector but I also think it's incumbent on the private sector to figure out ways to work with government. This has to be a two to tango kind of thing and so as much as the government may want to work with the with the private sector as long as we have companies who you know refuse to work with our Department of Defense while you know entertaining working with authoritarian powers. I think it's going to be difficult for us to actually get anywhere. So I think that there is a need in both Silicon Valley and in Washington for that willingness. Now is there some regulatory action to be taken here? Yes. Does it need to be smart? Yes. Does it need to ensure that we're not fighting the last battle instead of the future war? Yes. Does it probably need to ensure flexibility so that it's not actually regulating away our competitiveness? Absolutely. So I think that tech policy is absolutely going to dominate part of the conversation on the campaign trail but it's actually an area where I don't think there's necessarily consensus even within the Democratic Party on what the right kind of technology policy is. Thank you. I'll take one more from the group in the middle here then we'll move over to my very patient right. This gentleman in the front here. Thank you. Thanks so much for coming down and doing this wonderful speech. I'm Karan Tamizh. I'm one of the graduate students at the ANU and used to work at the Australian Mission to the UN in New York. In the last time there was a big Democratic primary field in 2008. Foreign policy background at least passed decision-making regarding the Iraq war became a big differentiating factor. Now you've gone through a lot of the issues where you think the Democrats, the Democratic candidate and the Democratic foreign policy can provide a clear distinction to President Trump. Do you see any kind of divisions inside the primary field from the candidates, a lot of them, a lot of whom don't have that big of a history in foreign policy that might pop up in national security or so over the next year or so? Yeah. I actually, I mean as I said, I don't expect foreign policy to be a sort of driving factor in the campaign either in the primary, maybe actually a little bit more in the general election than in the primary. So I don't think it's like 2008 with the Iraq war. But I do think there's a couple of areas where there are some potential differences. I mean technology policies I mentioned is one where I expect there to be a lot of conversation and I don't think we have consensus. Trade, as I mentioned, is another and it will be, it really hasn't been put yet to some of the more centrist candidates who appear to be running or may be running or haven't yet declared that they're running but are still coming down the pike. Somebody like Joe Biden obviously has a very, very long record on trade, very involved in promoting TPP. So where Joe Biden would land on the campaign trail, for instance, that could be one differentiating factor. I do as well and I kind of talked about this a little bit in my remarks. I do think there is a bit of a difference amongst candidates on the degree to which they believe that American international engagement or global leadership should be sort of a primary aspect of our approach. There are certainly some candidates who will argue something along the lines of we need to focus our attention at home first as if this is a choice that can be made. What I would note is of course that even those candidates have articulated, you know, for instance the importance of democracy around the world and countering authoritarianism and countering kleptocracy and you can't do those things if you're not internationally engaged. So I think there is an inherent tension in some of what is being articulated by some of those less international engagement focused candidates but I do think that that also could be a bit of a differentiating factor in some of the conversation. Thank you. All right, we'll go to this group now. You'll go to the ANU students are asking all the most troublesome questions this evening. I just should note that it's a sign of ANU's spirit of inquiry that you're getting troublesome questions from our students. Very welcome. Academic independence please. Yeah, I am a student. My name is Elizabeth. I'm a first year in a Bachelor of Age Pacific Affairs. My question is so while obviously complete abolition is unlikely, given the increased threat of the increased nuclear threat, do you think there's likely to be a move towards nuclear nonproliferation anytime in the next few decades? Nuclear nonproliferation as in actually arms reduction? Yes. You know, what I would say. Yeah, it's very tough times on that front. You know, we're sort of headed in the wrong direction right now on a whole bunch of different fronts.  We have seen that erode pretty significantly over the past few years. Now look, this isn't really just, I'm not going to blame this on Trump. You know, Russia's violation of the INF Treaty started during the Obama administration and, you know, it's been a challenge since that time. You know, obviously, since then we've seen the Trump administration pull out of the INF Treaty. Traditional arms control mechanisms seem to be eroding. I think we're all concerned about the future of New START and then that doesn't even get into obviously some of the, you know, concerns we face closer to home here in the region with North Korea. So, you know, my own sense is that if we can simply kind of go back to status quo ante and maybe rebuild some of the mechanisms, certainly with Russia, which I think are really quite important to the arms control regime, then that would be maybe the best place that I think we can get ourselves to. So I guess that's really not a very optimistic answer for you. I'm sorry. So we'll take two more. What I'll do is take both of these questions together and that gives you the opportunity to evade either of them if you wish. But I'm sure you won't. So in the front row here, please. Over on this side. Thank you. Oh, yes. One for you. Oh, this gentleman here. Yes. My name is Hideaki Shi. I'm from the Embassy of Japan in Canva. Quick question on Afghanistan. I think you talked about bureaucratic inertia when you talked about Afghanistan. But I wonder, do you think bureaucratic inertia with regard to Afghanistan serves to ensure America's, you know, global engagement? Or is it actually undermining America's ability to respond to greater strategic challenges? Okay, don't answer. This man who kindly passed on the microphone, you should take, we'll have three questions. Why don't you take your question, please? Yes. Yours might be easier. Laura, my name is Ben Smith, Australian China Friendship Society. You've spoken a lot this evening, vilifying China in one way or another. And yet, on numerous occasions, the United States has threatened China in the series of military bases which you have in the Western Pacific. What's your question? My question is that you should be the last person to criticise China. That's not a question. You've made numerous, numerous threats, the American government that is, against China, including the nuclear threat. Tell us about that. Thank you for that question. And our last question of the day, I think to the young woman in the middle, please, who has her hand raised. Hi, I'm Rhea. I'm an undergraduate law student. I was just wondering if you could comment a little bit on sort of the importance of like gun regulations and Islamophobia in the 2020 presidential race, particularly in light of A, the Christchurch attacks recently, and B, sort of the controversy and conflict that's arisen from some of the comments that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and in response to her Chelsea Clinton make. So thank you. Three wide-ranging questions. Over to you, Laura. All softballs as well. Okay, so starting with Afghanistan. I think that the United States has kicked the can on this particular challenge for too long. I think that it has often been too easy to continue with sort of the status quo while not actually facing some of the very tough decisions that we need to face. Now, one thing I will say on this point for any of you students in here who have especially if you're studying national security decision making, anytime I speak on national security decision making, one thing that I say is that if I ever have the privilege to serve in government again, I will never allow a decision memo to come across my desk that has as one of the options, do nothing and the consequences of that because I actually don't think that decision makers effectively weigh what the pros and cons of the status quo are. We look at all kinds of options and if you ever want to hear me talk about Syria and decision making there, this is actually super important in that context. The kick the can, do nothing decision is often the easiest, but it's one where we don't actually go through the exercise of weighing the pros and cons, but it is actually taking a decision and we need to recognize it as such. So in the Afghanistan context, do I believe that our inability to come to a very carefully weighted decision in a way to wrap down our presence there in a manner that protects American interests and enables the continued stability of the region is harming our ability to project American power elsewhere? Yes, I do. On China, I'm happy to chat. I don't believe anything I said is vilifying China. I've spent a lot of time in China and I certainly appreciate many friendships with the Chinese people, but I believe that a constructive relationship with China has to recognize some of the challenges that we do face in that relationship today and that is what I was was laying out. On the question of Islamophobia guns, Ilhan Omar, that's a lot. What I will just say is a couple of things. One, Donald Trump and his rhetoric has given permission to a lot of very heated xenophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, racist rhetoric. He has done that since his speech announcing his campaign, his candidacy in 2015. I don't believe that he is the cause of that. I grew up in a part of Western Pennsylvania that is not the friendliest to many minority communities and I'm deeply concerned by the resurgence we have seen in white nationalism in all kinds of forms across the United States. I think that it's incredibly important, as I mentioned, that the Democratic candidates for president project leadership that actually represents our values. I mean, for me, that really is about the attractiveness of America. It is about the idea of who we are and of being true to it. We have many blemishes, but our Constitution talks about forming a more perfect union, and that's always been what we've attempted to do. I think that that challenge is significant upon us today, but it's one that we have got to tackle and facing these demons are actually incredibly important to doing that.


For the speed of light, a cloud of dust, and a ha-hey-hay-oh silver, the Lone Ranger! General Mills, makers of Cheerios, the ready-to-eat oak cereal that gives you go-power, and Wheaties, the breakfast of champions, present by special recording, the Lone Ranger! Because champions are made not for... Yes, sir! Get on your way! Get on your way! Get on your way with Wheaties! Don't ever doubt it! Champions are made, not born! You can get there! For example, take the story of Wheaties champion Stan Muziel of the St. Louis Cardinals. Young Stan was willed no claim to fame, no magic way to learn the game. He had to sweat and give his all, learning to field and hit that ball. Sure, Wheaties was his breakfast call. Today they call him Stan the Man, field and always a Wheaties fan. Stan Muziel has been powering up with Wheaties right along, 19 years. Good for Stan, good for you. There's a whole kernel of wheat in every Wheaties place. Now watch Stan felt that ball! Hey, hey, hey! He's on his way, on his way! He's on his way, on his way! Get on your way with Wheaties! The champions are made not for... Yes, sir! Get on your way! Get on your way! Get on your way with Wheaties! Breakfast of death! Yes! With his faithful Indian companion title, the daring and resourceful mask writer of the plains led the fight for law and order in the early western United States. Nowhere in the pages of history can one find a greater champion of justice. Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. From out of the past come a thundering hoof-beach of the Great Horned Silver! The lone ranger rides again! Come on, Silver! Let's go, Silver! Hail, Silver! Hooray! It was a pitch-black night when the year's heaviest ring storm lashed the hills, flooded the streams, and beat against a log house in a desolate mountain area. For the past two years, the house had been a hideaway for a small, shifty eyed man whose name, according to Hanville's offering a reward for his capture, was Baldi Brighton. By the light of an open fireplace, Baldi was cleaning the rifle and six-gun that were never far from his side when he heard a rap on the door. How can that be? Baldi loaded his six-gun as he crossed the room to the heavily bolted door. That's Baldi! You in there? Who are you? Moog Sparney! Moog Sparney! Just a minute! Oh, I'm glad to see you, Moog. Come on in. I hope you'd still be here in a room like that. Yeah, I'll stay here. It's the safest place to know of. But it's been mighty lonesome since a year ago when you did that. When I got Bruce Lee's, who made the fool of my steak, he'd go in the box, Bill, through my place. Moog, I never could figure out how the sheriff in Boxville knew you were wanted and got the drop on you. You think Sheriff Pringle cut me? Well, I didn't know. All I knew was what I heard McCall's old story. Yeah, what was that? You were caught, tied, and jailed for 20 years in a territorial prison. That's true. But it wasn't Sheriff Pringle who cut me. It was a lone ranger. And for that, I'm gonna kill him. How'd you get out of jail? I was just trusting. Working in the warden's office. When my chance came, I knocked out the warden, forced his name to a pass, and walked right through the gate. Yeah, it's mighty slick. Well, it was him prison I learned a lot. I learned how we could get the lone ranger. Yeah? Also, I took to a man who was doing time for embezzlement. He'd been a bookkeeper for the railroad. I know all about gold shipments. One train to hold up will make us rich. Two of us can't rob a train. There'll be five of us. Who are the other three? Blaze Lufkin? And the two warden brothers. I've heard of them, but I don't know them. I don't know me, either. But I do know they're mighty tough hombres and fast gunslingers. And I reckon they've heard of me. Everyone's heard of you, Moose. You know, I figure Blaze and the wardens will be glad to work with me. Especially if they know that the chance to square things with a lone ranger they ain't got grudges against him. Yeah, they did three years in jail because of him. I told them to come here if they weren't interested. Yeah, hide out there. That's right. I gave them directions for finding the place. And I bet they'd show up. A few days later, the lone ranger and Toto riding along the floor of a canyon noticed that the river running through the canyon was much wider and deeper than usual. I've never seen the rivers higher this tunnel. It was even higher. Several feet higher, just after the rain. That's right. High water mark on canyon walls. Yes, I noticed it. The entire floor of the canyon was under water. What if the bridge is damaged? Bridge? It's not top of canyon. Water does not go to that high. Oh, but the timbers that support the center of the bridge are anchored on each bank of the river. The flood washed out those timbers of bridges. Well, who knows, Kimusavi? Turn in canyon just ahead. Then we see bridge. Come on, Toto. Come on, Toto. For the last man and his Indian companion, we're watching for the bridge. As their horses follow the bend in the canyon. Toto, the timbers are down. You see? That bridge is no longer safe. There's a big, deep valley. The man on horse start over bridge from far bank. He can't see if the timbers are down. You on the bridge! Go back! Kimna, I'm here. Shot by Jettie's attention. And look this way. Go back! Kimna, pay attention. Go! While the falling man and horse were in midair, the lone ranger leaped from the saddle and began to unbuckle his gun belt. Man in water now. Stay on the bank and be ready with the rope. I'll try to get him. The man pulled off his boots, tossed his hat to Toto, and plunged into the water. He swam hard, angling against the current for the man in midstream. His hat was made more difficult and dangerous by the floating wreckage of the bridge, but presently he reached the motionless form. On the shore, Toto held his rope coils ready to throw as he moved along the bank to stay abreast of the lone ranger. Who, with his burdens, was carried downstream by the current inch by inch, the masked man near the shore. Then Toto threw his lariat. Oh, oh, oh! Oh Christ, Kimatabi! He's pulling the shore! On the dry bank of the river, the masked man soon learned that his effort to save a life had been wasted. He's dead, Toto.  Maybe that's what killed him. Looked like skull broken. He was probably struck by part of the bridge. His horse not hurt. Horse reached bank, near bend downstream. Him come this way. Toto, we know this man. I didn't notice his face until I pushed his hair back. Ah, me remember. Him outlawed. Blaze locked him. That's right. We kept him free four years ago. Well, his death is no law to society. A letter in his pocket written in pencil. And who write the blade? Moose Varney. Him, outlaw too. Yes, he wrote this letter just after he escaped from prison a few weeks ago. He mentioned us. What can say? This letter is an invitation to join Moose Varney and his partner. Listen to this part, Toto. Moose says, I have inside information that will make it easy for us to do two things. One, get away with $50,000.  Now, what do you mean by inside information? I'd like to know. Better tell where Moose hiding? Yes, it gives directions and landmarks to reach the hideout. We take law there? We might capture Moose, but we never learn what inside information he has. That's right. And he tried to lift? According to this letter, Moose has never seen Blaze Varney. I could pose as Blaze. What do you mean? Lighten my skin to look like prison power.  I'd blaze this horse if I'm sure I could fool Moose Varney long enough to learn a few things. You take many big risks. I'll give you a copy of the direction for reaching the hideout so you can bring the sheriff an apothec. Blaze, port here now. There's a waterproof covering on that blanket roll. See if Blaze carried extra clothing. Will you? Me, look. We're about the same size. I could wear his clothes. The wrapped Blaze locks him in the blanket and ties him to Silver's saddle so you'll be able to take him to Sheriff Pindall and Boxville. Here, try clothes, Himatati. Good. I'll change to those and disguise my face. What can we do with your clothes? Back to him Silver's saddlebags. We'll take them with you. Himatati, the Bill Pryor, dry him out, then pack him. All right, Tano. There's no worry about reaching Boxville, but I want to reach Moose Varney as soon as possible. After the lone ranger disguised as Blaze Lockwind rode away on the outlaw's horse, Tato spent about an hour drying and packing the clothing of his friend. He was extinguishing the Pryor he built when the Martin Brothers opposed the top of the canyon some distance away. Hey, Keb, the bridge is down. What? That means we'll have to go around the canyon to reach Moose Varney's place. Yeah, that'll be five or six hours of riding. Yeah, I'd ride five or six days to get the lone ranger. Hey, Keb, speaking of the lone ranger, look down there, downstream on the floor of the canyon. White horse, a paint horse, and an Indian. That looks like the lone ranger's horse. It is. The engine is cuddled. Something across the saddle with a white horse. Looks like a man's body wrapped in a blanket.   That's what he said in his letter he planned to do. Who are we going to know? The engine's starting downstream, leading silver. Come on, we'll follow him. Get up there. Come on, get up there. Come on. We'll continue our lone ranger adventure in just a moment. When boys line up to run a race, galloping gardens set the pace. He comes in first because he knows he's got gold power from Cheerios. Yes, he's got gold power There he goes. He's feeling his Cheerios. Cheerios, Cheerios. And so will you. Once you're eating Cheerios every breakfast, you'll say that Cheerios taste simply wonderful too.  Pour out a big bowlful, add fresh milk and pitch in. You can almost feel the gold power. For a Cheerios breakfast is one of the finest ways you can get the vitamins, proteins and minerals your body needs. A bowl of Cheerios and milk really starts your day right. Helps give you the good red blood, strong bones and muscles. Gold power, you'll get it from Cheerios. Try it and folks will say He's feeling his Cheerios. Now to continue. It was after dark when Toto reached the town of Boxville. He left the horses in the open area behind the sheriff's office and entered the office through the back door. But short time later the Martin brothers who had followed Toto from the canyon and left their horses some distance behind the sheriff's office walked softly through the darkness. They were nearing an open window when they heard the lawman exclaim. He got the chair toy. What's he saying about Blaze Lost in Lake Canoe? The back window doesn't look so close to this. Yeah, maybe we'll find out about that good man. The man had to be there and the man dead. The lone ranger takes good look at the face. That man blazed lost his face but had been the hand of fate to put him on that bridge when he went down. Did you leave the body in the canyon? No. We ravaged him blanket and put it on silver. Bring it here. I'm going to wake up. Wait. The lone ranger not want anyone know Blaze dead. Well, why do you want to keep a secret in Blaze's pocket? The lone ranger find letters from Moose Burnie written after he left that right. He, according to that, had his face lost and inside the blanket. Moose asked Blaze to hide out. Tell him how get there and say big robbery plan. Then come and let him Moose send us. Be quiet. What do you think? The lone ranger disguised face changed clothes right outlawed horse. Then take letter and go to hide out. We have copy of that letter. Come with me. Where to? Get to our horses. All right. I'd like to hear some more. You've heard enough to know Moose Barney hide out. He's probably there by this time. Yeah, posing as Blaze Loftrin. What a surprise he'll have when we tell Moose the truth. You figure I'm starting for the hideout right now? Sure. The sooner the better. We're right all night to get there and get it for it. Come on.  Come on.  The following morning Moose and Baldy Bryson sat in the hideout cabin drinking coffee. The lone ranger playing the part of Blaze Loftrin had not yet Moose. What do you think, Blaze? At least a muddy, smooth-talking hombre. And I like the way he wears his guns. Tied low. Sure it looks as if he knew how to handle it. His records prove for that. When are you going to tell him the plan? I don't know. All right. Well, Addy, we didn't know you were up to that. We didn't hear you open the bedroom door. Any reason why I should make a noise in your door? Oh. No, no. Of course not. You're down here at the table, Blaze. Thanks. I'll have your ham and eggs ready in no time. You know, I'll pour you coffee. Thanks again. I reckon you heard me saying some complimentary things about you. As you say, you didn't know when you told me your plan. I waited since last night to hear them. That's long enough. I figured on waiting until the Martin Brothers got here. There's no use for everything twice. You're not sure the Martins are coming. No, but... But you may be dead sure. I'm leaving. Unless I know what you have in mind. I don't mind telling you, Blaze. Your letter mentioned inside information. Yeah. What information have you concerning the Lone Ranger? I know he's a good friend of a certain party. Where'd you learn that? From the chaplain to prison. What do you plan to do about it? We'll send him to help badly the Lone Rangers needed in a certain place. Like, for example, this hideout. And if he did come here, what would you do? Plenty. We'd capture him in his Indian pile all the time and get square for a lot of things before we finally put him out of the misery. You mentioned a $50,000 deal. It's a real road robbery. Prisoner's full of men who tried to rob trains and failed. Yeah. But we won't fail. I know just one payroll cash is sent to the gold mine region. Now it's guarded. I've got all the faxing. But you've got him from a man named prison. He worked for the railroad. What's his name? Well, I don't know if I should mention it. What's his name? Why not tell him most? All right. It's plans before I agree to go along with you. Most two horsemen are outside. Grab your gun. Be ready for trouble. I've seen through the windows. They're just mountains. Do they look like larmini? No. But they look alike. Could be the Martin Brothers. Yeah. Who is it? It's Martin and Dan. They play. You and Baldi cover the door. All right. You moose funny. What if I am? Well, here's your letter. Yeah, that does it. Come on in, gentlemen. Welcome. All right. This is Baldi Brighton. And this is Blaise Loughlin. All right.  That's right. Yeah. I'm John Wright proud to meet you, Mr. Loughlin. I've heard a lot about you. We sure have. Folks talk a lot about those guns while Dick Martin stood placing the Lone Ranger. Jeb crossed to the far side of the room so he was behind the back of the man who posed as Blaise Loughlin.  Hey, Blaise, your cub is getting cold. I'll serve a ham and eggs and start some more. Just a minute. Before we sit on, I'd like to examine Mr. Loughlin's guns. In that case, you'll save a lot of time by sitting down. You mean you don't intend to let me see your guns? There's no use starting an argument. If Blaise don't want to draw his guns, we'll draw for him. You're covered. Get your hands dirty, Jeb. What's your idea? Why are you drawing them, Blaise? Blaise Loughlin's dead. Why? This man took his horse, closed his letter and come here in his place. You better be sure of that. I'm dead sure. Jeb and I were behind the sheriff's office where we saw Blaise Loughlin's body wrapped in a blanket. And we heard Chano telling the sheriff about the Lone Ranger's plan to come here, disguised as Blaise. The Lone Ranger moved with speed born of desperation. He grasped Deep's gunhand and twisted his arm. In an instant Deep became a human shield between his brother and the Lone Ranger. Shoot!  Suddenly the grip on Deep's arm was released and the mighty shoved sent the outlaw hurtling across the room. Passing against Jeb, both men fell to the floor. The moose and the Lone Ranger fired almost at the same instant. One bullet broke Moose Barney's arm, but the Lone Ranger didn't know it. To explode in his brain, his gun dropped. You got him Moose! He dropped to the floor with blood showing on the side of his head.  No, let me kill him. No, hold on. If he's alive, let's keep him alive until he wakes up. And we'll really make him sweat. Hey, a winger at India! Deep takes cover! Now, how far has left through the window hitting Deep in one leg and Baldi in the hand? Jeb was about to fire at the engine when the sheriff's fixed gun spoke from the doorway. Go down your gun or we pay the cost Seeing the sheriff followed by two deputies, the wounded outlaws knew it would be suicide to continue the fight. He must have been Toto leaped through the broken window and rushed to the side of his wounded friend. The sheriff and his deputies sat in the hideaway cabin guarding their handcuffed prisoners while Toto worked in the bedroom dressing the Lone Ranger's wound. The sheriff was saying, Moose, I reckon you know where you're going. Back to prison and Baldi's going with you this time. The law has hunted him for a long time. Yeah, you've got nothing on us, Sheriff. Well, Deep, maybe you and your brother never heard of a charge of attempted murder.  With your record, you'll get a long time in jail. I wish I'd killed that Lone Ranger. Well, if you had all four of you would hang. Toto. Sheriff. Me, fixed wound. How is the Lone Ranger? Bullet, gray's head. Hurts plenty, but not serious. I'll thank the good Lord for that. The worst thing that could happen to the West would be to lose the Lone Ranger. A copyrighted feature of the Lone Ranger Incorporated is produced by Kendall Campbell Neuer Incorporated. A part of the Lone Ranger is played by Brace Beamer, your announcer, Fred Boyd. Listen to the Lone Ranger brought to you by Special Recording Mon...


So, the security profile is designed to, as you would guess, communicate security information. And so probably the biggest part of that is communicating vulnerabilities in software. So if you know that there's a CVE that exists in a package, you want to communicate that somehow. And there's kind of two ways that you might want to talk about this. You might want to associate the vulnerability with a specific element. So this vulnerability is found in this package. You also probably want some way to communicate the severity of that vulnerability and the impact or the exploitability of it. And there's different ways, different ways that you can rate the severity, and we've built in support for those different ways. But maybe you just want to link to external vulnerability information. So this might be in relationship to a particular CVE, or maybe you want to include security information in a security relationship. So you might want to link to some sort of security advisory. So this has support for CSAF, Cyclone DX formatted security information, OSV documents, and VDRs per the NIST Executive Order 14028. You also might want to include information about a security fix for a CVE. So whether that's a code fix or a patch. And then maybe you have information that doesn't fit into fix or vulnerability. You can use security other, which is kind of just a catch-all for including any unspecified type of security information. And then we also have a way to assert the status of a vulnerability. So there's built-in VEX support here, and Adolfo's going to talk more about VEX if you've never heard of it, or you're not sure what it is. He will cover that. It stands for Vulnerability Exploitability Exchange, and it's just a way of communicating whether packages are actually vulnerable to CVEs that are associated with them. Okay. Is that the last one? Okay. Well, my image is not showing, but that's okay. So these profiles, they use the core profile and then inherit from it. So a vulnerability is a security element. It inherits from core's element thing, and a weakness, yes, a vulnerability is an element, and it has a published time, modified time, and withdrawn. These are all optional. You don't need to include them, but it's metadata that you can include about a vulnerability. A vulnerability might also have an external reference or an external identifier, and it may have one or more of these things. So we'll go over an example of what that looks like. The security profile also adds security-related external reference types. So as we kind of discussed, a security advisory, which is some sort of published security advisory defined per this ISO here by the U.S. government, and then a security fix or a security other. My goodness, I think we're going to have issues. So the security profile uses relationships just like you would in core. So you're going to, from an element, there's going to be some type of relationship with a relationship type to another element. And especially in the security profile, this could be an actor of some sort. And we'll go over that. So in order to communicate assessment of a vulnerability, which is essentially severity, we chose to use relationships. And that's because you can kind of model metadata using a relationship or a property, but relationships are for things that are changing or may change more frequently than something like a property would. So we have this vulnerability or vulnerable assessment relationship, and then inheriting from that are kind of these different metrics for scoring a vulnerability. So CVSS v2, CVSS v3, EPSS, et cetera. And then we have this VEX-vulne assessment relationship. And inheriting from that are the different types of VEX status relationships. So there's fixed, not affected under investigation and affected, and it also will go over those in just a bit. We also added two core security-related relationship types. So these are used in a number of ways. You'll see something like has CVSS v2 assessment for, that's going to be used in relationship with the CVSS v2-vulne assessment relationship. But there's also relationships like has associated vulnerability, which simply says that there's a vulnerability that exists and in some way it's associated with a software artifact. This does not mean that the vulnerability affects the software artifact or it does not affect the software artifact simply that there's a known relationship published there. We have more. So fixed by, found by, published by, reported by, republished by, these are relationships that you might use to associate an actor or with a vulnerability element. And so this is all in the model on GitHub. If you want to look at more of those definitions, there's also these effects does not affect fixed and under investigation for, those are VEX relationships that you'll use for VEX relationship elements. So I wanted to go over an example. This is from NIST, I think. They have like an SBOM document and this is just a really simple example. We're going to assume that Acme application and Bob's browser, all of those are packages. So Acme application is what you would typically think of like, oh, this is the top level software. I want an SBOM for that. And it has all of these dependencies included in it. But we're going to simplify this even more since code blocks, there's only so much that fits on a screen. So we're going to have this top level Acme application and it contains Bob's browser and you could use core to model this relationship on the screen. So Acme application, it contains Bob's browser. Maybe you would use the depends on relationship that depends on how you want to model this. But this could be modeled in core. But now if we say that Bob's browser has a vulnerability, we're going to use a security profile to model this. So the things highlighted in orange are security profile specific things that I've kind of talked about in this presentation. So we would create this vulnerability element and we're going to say it's CVE 20231234 and this is all kind of made up. So we'll just say, you know, there's an ID, a summary, a description for this vulnerability because it is an element in the security profile and then we have these external identifiers. So look, I have a pointer here. So this external identifier type is a CVE. That's the ID assigned to this element. There's the locator for it. Okay. No, I lost my pointer. There's locator for it and issuing authority. And then you can, as I said, you can have multiple external identifiers. So maybe you also have a security other external identifier. This one in particular is coming from a GitHub advisory and you could list as many as existed for that CVE element that you created. And then you could also have an external reference. And so this is a security advisory external reference to the NIST vulnerability detail for this CVE and this is, you know, a vulnerability element that can contain all of this metadata about the vulnerability. This is a continuation, so I just chopped off all those external identifiers but let's assume that they were still in this vulnerability element. We would then use relationships to associate the vulnerability with a subcomponent or with a package. So, you know, we have this relationship. We have this relationship. We create an ID for it. And then this is just kind of a high level has associated vulnerability. That's the type I was talking about where we say there is a vulnerability that says it's in this package, Bob's browser, but we don't know anything more about that. We don't know whether it affects it. We don't know the severity. We just know that there is a CVE that is associated with this package. And so we would use relationships to say something like that. Yeah. Sure. So how this works in practice, this vulnerability, it is outside of the SPDX itself. But there is a pointer in the SPDX that points to the CVE. So who is responsible for putting that in? Is that the developer that puts that in? Or is there within the organization, such as my organization, if I'm ingesting that, would my internal software assurance people or someone like that modify the SPDX to point to that CVE? Or how does that work in practice? So then the responsibility is the, so there's two ways. So I, as the consumer, could amend the SPDX. Or I, as the developer, could also append the SPDX. Okay. Okay. Cool. Thank you. So more code that will make your eyes hurt. I apologize. This is a way to assert an assessment for a vulnerability. So this is saying that I am asserting a severity for this CVE. So to do that, we're going to use this CVSSV3 Vulna Assessment relationship. Then we're going to create a relationship element. The relationship type is the associated has CVSSV3 Assessment4. It has a severity field, a score, a vector, and you would fill that in. And then from is going to be the top level package that contains a subcomponent with the vulnerability. So we're saying that top level ACME application 1.1 has this vulnerability with this severity. And then the assessed element is a security profile piece of metadata that basically indicates which subcomponent has this vulnerability. So you can kind of see the hierarchy from that diagram that we started with, where the ACME application is that top level component. And then this Bob's browser 2.2 is the subcomponent, which actually contains the CVE. And then just like the vulnerability element we created, this CVSSV3 Vulna Assessment relationship element might also have external relationships, it might also have an external identifier included one here just for an example, but it also might not. But you would use it in the same way as the previous relationship. And then I also included a way that you can show who published this severity score. So you would use a relationship for that with the published by relationship type from the security profile. So we're saying from this CVSSV3 CVE relationship, and then the actor is this agent sneak, that's who assigned the severity of the vulnerability, and maybe it has a start time of when that severity was established.