headline. News update. Hey, good afternoon, everyone. Larry Pesavento giving you a mid afternoon update of stock market. Well, we've got Christmas Day here, folks. We got red. We've got green. We've got the notes and bonds are up a little bit and we've got the stock indices are down, not a little bit. Dow's down 70. S&P's down about 38. Very critical levels that we're setting at right now. And we've got the currencies in this bag with the euro is down a little bit. Pound is up a little bit. That's pretty much all that's going on. The grain markets are doing very, very little. So it's we're at a real critical day, folks, as far as where we stand with the stock market, setting here in the Dow Jones, and especially in the S&P at this level of a 40-45. If you'll remember, we have been talking about that for just about two weeks now that that is a very important 38 to retracement. And even though the market is selling off, it has a very, very bullish undertone from looking at it on a technical basis. I'll bring up a chart here that you folks may or may not be interested in. But it looks like it has a possibility here of making some type of a very significant bottom in here from looking at it on a technical basis. Now, this will all change. And remember, we have President's Day this coming week. So the markets will be trading Sunday night on Globex. They start around four o'clock, six o'clock in the evening, New York time, and they'll trade through till about 11 in the morning on Monday. They'll go till about noon on Monday. So they're gonna trade all Sunday night and all Monday. And then things open up again late Monday night at six o'clock again. Everything goes back to Globex again. And then we start our regular routine on Sunday. Remember, the rest of the world does not recognize our President's Day. In fact, our President's Day here in the state of Arizona was, don't know, it was Martin Luther King Day. Mr. Reagan didn't think that Mr. Dr. King deserved. No, it wasn't Reagan. It was the governor of Arizona. He didn't want to, I forget what the guy's name was. Anyway, I remember it wasn't Reagan at all. It was the governor of Arizona. And he said, no, we're not going to have a President's Day for him. They didn't have any Martin Luther King Boulevards here until, oh my gosh, the late 80s. So it was after Reagan became President that that became a big deal. Anyway, that's a little historical fact that you didn't need to know anything about. And I'm not even sure of it.<PHONE_NUMBER>, state floor Fibonacci 24-7. We'll be right back.


That tastes like when Bruce Willis would actually care Hey guys, it's a little bit of a random review here, but After the whole fiasco of glass, I really wanted to go back and watch Unbreakable Which I oddly enough had only ever seen once and I think I thought about the mid-2000s but it always stuck with me in terms of its concept and Having rewatched it now. I can definitely say it is probably The best night Shyamalan movie that I personally have seen I haven't seen all of his but I've seen all of his quote-unquote good ones And this is my favorite one for two very specific reasons one is its dedication to staying within the realm of a Realistic reality as the film tries to portray and that's not just the idea of the heroes being in the real world But the idea of a realistic sort of hero the interactions between the characters being very real Very slow and the whole movie itself being a bit of a slow burn also definitely its cinematography done by Eduardo Cera Who keeps it so simple and these long long takes without cuts and Helps build this realm of reality this realism into it And then even the ending the ending actually has those still frames with what happened to those characters afterwards just further and further Developing this idea of a realistic world So I definitely got to give Shyamalan a lot of credit for keeping to this realm that he wanted to create to this world That this universe exists, which is a mirror of our own in fact of the time The second thing is just the acting in this the acting in this is actually really good It's amazing to see Bruce Willis give a shit about a role that isn't John McClane I've been watching the die-hard movies a lot recently just the three good ones Anyways just seeing his reactions and his interactions with his family with different people with Elijah is so Genuine I know I shouldn't be really praising the guy for doing his job correctly But he really does give a lot into this character and David Dunn is probably one of the best characters That night Shyamalan is ever written. He has flaws He's not a perfect human being his entire life has been kind of in a search of a purpose and his interactions with his son Some of the interactions are so good, which by the way his son is also a very good actor in this movie There's two scenes in particular that he stands out really well is The first is when he has the gun and he's pointing it at Bruce Willis and he's saying I won't hurt you It'll just bounce off and it's a very tense situation and it plays out In a realm where you actually could believe a conversation like this would happen in this sort of situation if Someone was in fact a possible superhero. How Bruce Willis comms like diffuses the situation He says I'm going to move away He doesn't say anything about punishment in terms of what he'll do to his son or you know What the ramifications of what he would do would be he just says I'm going to move away And his son doesn't want that because they are rekindling this relationship He's trying to get his father back and then when he puts the gun down everyone does like whoa Just sits down and that's how you feel after watching the scene because it was all just one take to the second is When he reveals to his son what he did like he's the savior and there's so much emotion in that scene They show it in glass and I was trying to remember the significance of it And there's just so much in it his son Just in arms of the idea that his dad has finally accepted this whole superhero thing that he was in fact not wrong about what his He thought his father was and he's just so happy to not only see his dad as a superhero But to have his dad and his mom back together I know I already said it but I really want to talk about how good the cinematography is in this the very first scene Is when Elijah is born and it's one take yet There's four different angles in it They keep on going up and down between the two and then they go to the side and then they go further back like this And it's so good and they do this several times in the movie When Bruce Willis is on the train when he's fighting the guy in the house the freaking Window curtain shot now that is one of the best shots in the movie And it's literally just a standstill shot Right at the camera and there's these curtains that are in front of it They're kind of like waving back and forth if you really really look you can see that someone's down on The side like tugging it, but it works so well in terms of when the breaks happen not just for Basically a really good visual shot, but dramatic tension As Bruce Willis slowly moves towards the curtain They're always cuts back and then it will open again as he's moved closer And then when the villain appears when the guy who's taken over the house He appears in Samuel Jackson is really good too and there's this Elijah character and this twist is My opinion his best twist Admittedly when he looks at all the stuff on the side and he sees all the obvious bombs stuff on the side It kind of de-mitigates it like all he had to do is walk into the room like oh, hey You're building bombs here all that needed was that handshake And when you think about there's so much in that scene because Samuel Jackson is the one who says I think this is where we shake hands because he knows that when he does David Dunn is going to know everything about him and he is going to go down for everything that he has done But he finally has resolved himself in terms of finding a purpose that he was the one who was able to bring David Dunn into the world I just really like the idea of a realistic story in a world where Superheroes could exist. This is something that Shyamalan Really really shined with in terms of his writing and in terms of his world building and terms of directing every single part of this film is so Detailed that really all he has to do is have Edward Russo whole have the camera just on what matters He doesn't need all this quick or interesting editing It just is on the characters also It helps that James Newton Howard provides a fantastic score for this film too the music in this movie is so good I keep forgetting just how good the music is in this film And it helps emulate so many of these scenes. So if you haven't seen them breakable. Yes It is a very slow burn. They try to emulate this in glass, but not really the best in my opinion, but it is a Very unique film. It is one of Shyamalan's best if not his best movie It has fantastic acting from Bruce Willis kid who plays his son Samuel Jackson Robin Wright pen Oh that story is so good too.  I'm gonna give on breakable I was surprised. I actually think about giving this a six, but I Really enjoyed this movie. I really like watching it It is one of my favorite films that Shyamalan's ever done So I'm gonna give it a seven out of seven. Honestly, this is the best one I remember being kind of very much let down by the sixth sense because The first time he talks to his wife and his wife doesn't answer him was like, okay, of course He's dead that never really got to me But unbreakable has always stuck with me and that's a movie that I've only ever seen once up until now But I've always remembered it also that pool scene that pool scene is just terrifying That's one of the scariest stunts I've ever seen done. Anyways guys I hope you enjoyed this review if you did leave a like and if you're interested in more maybe subscribe Otherwise see you guys next time


The World's Honored Watch is Laun Jean. Laun Jean watches have won ten World's Fair Grand Prizes, twenty-eight gold medals and more, honors for accuracy than any other timepiece. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, is made and guaranteed by the Laun Jean Whittenall Watch Company. It's time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Laun Jean Whittenall Watch Company, maker of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Whittenall, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope? Mr. Peter Keyes of the New York Herald Tribune, and Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury. Our distinguished guest for this evening is Mr. Dean Rusk, Assistant Secretary of State. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Rusk, I believe you've just returned from a fast trip to Japan and Korea, sir. That's correct, Mr. and I'm sure that our Chronoscope audience will be very much interested in your views. Now, sir, what are the possibilities for a ceasefire in Korea? Well, as a matter of fact, I didn't make this particular trip to talk about a ceasefire, but I think it's fair to say that the prospects for a ceasefire are somewhat better than they have been at any time since the talks started. But I would like to caution Mr. Huey that there still are some very serious and formidable points to be agreed, and I would not want to be in the position of predicting that we are going to see an early ceasefire in Korea. Let's ask you about the crucial one, Mr. Rusk. Have you got any good reason to believe that the communists will agree to any inspection behind their lines in Korea, something that would really guard against the new aggression? We are now in the process of finding that out, Mr. Keyes. We don't know yet, but that's what the negotiation is about at the present time. We feel that a reasonable inspection to assure against the resumption of hostilities is a reasonable point to include in a ceasefire. Was it possible how to ceasefire without an inspection? That remains to be seen. We have insisted that some form of adequate inspection is an essential. Now, sir, do I understand that you are saying to our people and our people are gravely concerned about the Korean issue now? Are you predicting that there's anything optimistic in Korea? Are you cautioning our people to expect the worst, perhaps? I think we have to play this as it comes. We are trying to find out whether there can be established a ceasefire on terms which are reasonable and acceptable to us. Now, if the other side can meet those terms, there will be a ceasefire. But what I was trying to say was that we should not be foolishly optimistic here and think that what remains to be done is easy because there are two or three very important points still to be covered in the negotiations. Now, sir, suppose there is not a ceasefire then what is likely to develop in the Orient? The United Nations have been fighting with very great determination here to stop this aggression in Korea. At the same time, I think everyone outside of the Communist block must admit that they've been acting with great self-restraint in order to prevent a world war if possible. Now, patients is likely to run out someday. And if there is not a ceasefire or a continuation of a course of aggression there will be produced a very grave situation. Our people have recently, last week, were warned by General Vandenberg, very impressive press conference. And General Vandenberg indicated that our patient seems to be running rather low. Now, is what you are seeing in accord with what General Vandenberg expressed? I don't believe that General Vandenberg intended to say that we are unwilling to pursue this ceasefire negotiation to its conclusion. General Ridgway has been faced with a very difficult double job out there. He has been conducting negotiations in the ceasefire and he's been offering combat leadership to our troops. And he's been doing both in a superb fashion and deserves our support. I'd be interested in one thing, Mr. Rusk. Have you got any good reason why the communists should want to ceasefire in Korea? If you were a communist, would you want to ceasefire in Korea? If I were a communist, which I am not. I'm glad to hear that. Anyone in the State Department has got to clear themselves these days. I think there are many reasons why the communists might want to ceasefire, but we don't know yet. We're finding out. But the Korean affair has been costly to them in prestige and confidence and building up the coalition of the great world against them. They have lost great influence in Asia. They have succeeded in putting this country on the alert and have started a great mobilization process here. They have warned West in Europe that that course of action on which they were embarked needs to be resisted by organized effort. There are very great costs to the communists in this enterprise in Korea. Now, Mr. Rusk, if I might ask one other question, aren't there some pretty big costs to the West as well in Korea? We're tying down an awful lot of our best troops, aren't we? Yes, there are costs, and I don't think any of us feel that decisions about whether you fight are to be lightly taken. But we strongly believe that the costs of not resisting aggression in Korea would have been far greater than the cost of resisting it in lives and material, in our own security right here in our own homes. Mr. Rusk, during the MacArthur hearings, I believe that the spokesmen for the government, for the State Department and for the Defense Department, I believe they made a great deal of the fact that we couldn't afford to get involved in a large-scale war on the Asiatic mainland that it was something to be avoided at almost all costs. Now, you're talking about patients running out, and General Vandenberg is warning. Now, does that mean that we are ready as a nation to embark on a large-scale war, or are we contemplating a large-scale war on the Asiatic mainland? Mr. Hill, I have to return to my earlier answer, and that is that if the ceasefire talks fail, and if this course of aggression continues, we'll face a very grave situation. I simply cannot anticipate the decisions that would have to be made in that situation. Let me ask you this, sir. In the State Department, and of course you are primarily concerned with far Eastern affairs, are you encouraged by the attitudes of our allies in the Korean fighting? On the whole, yes. Mr. Huey, those who have troops in Korea have their ambassadors meet with us regularly two or three times a week in Washington. And we have seen there a very high degree of solidarity throughout this entire affair. But what we should like to have is additional support, particularly from some of those countries which have not yet furnished troops, and we're negotiating as we can to find where we might get additional forces for Korea. Have you sense that their patience, too, is running out in Korea? I can't speak for them. I can tell. I can testify that there has been, maintained here, a very strong and unified attitude toward the Korean War itself. We'd like, on that question of additional troops for Korea, it seemed to me that a lot of the United Nations members have offered to have single volunteers enlist in the United Nations Legion, yet the United States has always seemed to oppose that. What's the situation on that? Well, I think by and large our defense people would prefer to have units that are organized by the respective countries themselves, for they would be responsible for their elementary discipline, and where we would not be involved in recruiting and training a great many incidental personnel who would not be effective in combat for quite a long period. Yet you're going to have to occupy Korea for quite a while. You're going to have to have manpower for that thing. Even if you had a ceasefire, you're not going to get out of Korea for a long time to come. I just want to say out of hand, Mr. Keyes, that your suggestion doesn't have any possibly good idea. I'm just saying that thus far the administrative arrangements for dealing with it have not seemed to be practical. Now, Mr. Rusk, are you a policymaker? Are you one of the policy makers in the State Department? For better or for worse, I suppose that an assistant secretary is ranked as a policy officer in the Department. And you are particularly in charge now of the Far East. Is there a Far East policy now in the State Department? I'm going to surprise you, Mr. Hewitt, by saying that not only is there a Far Eastern policy, but there is a broad Far Eastern policy which has general support throughout the country, regardless of our political party. I realize that's quite a statement in these days of considerable quarreling among ourselves here at home. But let me just give you a few samples of what I refer to as a generally agreed Far Eastern policy. This great piece of reconciliation which we've just signed with the Japanese. The security treaty which we've signed with the Japanese immediately after the peace treaty was signed. The determination to assist Japan in coming back into the world community as a free and equal member under conditions in which they can earn their living. Resistance to aggression in Korea. An attempt to deal with aggression in Korea without spreading it into a world war. The recognition of nationalist China. The prevention of Famosa from falling into hostile hands. The non-recognition of Pei Feng. The support of the nationalist membership in the United Nations. And all out security commitment to the Philippines. Economic, technical, and other types of assistance to the Philippines to help them get their house in order. Assistance to the French and associated states forces in Indochina to try to deal with the military threat to that country. Economic and technical assistance to a whole range of new countries in the Far East to help them get themselves on a working basis. You asked for the question now. Those are some samples. Well, that's a very impressive defense. I'll admit, sir, I'd like to come back to just one thing that you said. Do you believe that the country in general now supports the State Department and its Far East activities? We find, Mr. Hewitt, that there is a very broad support for these main lines of policy in the Far East that I'm talking about. Do you concede that there has been a great deal of distrust in the country as regards our State Department policy in the Far East? There has been a lot of argument about it and my prediction is that that argument will continue. But I am suggesting that the principle disagreements have been about certain matters of history, certain points of procedure and technique, but not about the fundamental arguments. Are you one of the spokesmen who follows the plan that the State Department or maintains the position that the State Department has not made any errors in the Far East, or do you concede errors? What's your practicing? I don't think anyone ought to claim that errors have not been made. But if you ask me the next question, what are those errors? What those errors have been, I don't think I'm going into those. Without asking you about errors, I wonder if I could ask you, as a matter of news, what do you think is the strength of the Chinese Communist government? How much of a hold has it got on its people? Is there any opposition in Communist China? I think during the last year and a half, Mr. Keyes, the taping regime has been able to consolidate its control over the key centers of communication and principal cities in China. And that's the very vigorous and persistent purge through which they have driven non-communist elements has been effective. And that therefore we find that only in the remote areas and in a somewhat minimum way is there any active resistance. Mr. Rusk, you've made a very spirited defense of the State Department tonight, and I'm sure that our audience appreciates your coming here from Washington. Thank you very much, sir. The editorial board for this edition of the Long Gene Chronoscope was Mr. Peter Keyes and Mr. William Bradford Huey. Our distinguished guest was Mr. Dean Rusk, Assistant Secretary of State. Now, before you go to bed tonight, do this. And there is December and just 20 shopping days before Christmas. Now, if you have an important gift to buy, say a watch, and particularly a Long Gene watch, don't put it off another day. There are so many reasons why no other watch or fine character enjoys so great a preference for Christmas giving throughout the world as Long Gene. These medals, for instance. Do you know that Long Gene is the only watch in history to win 10 World's Fair Grand Prizes and 28 Gold Medal Awards? And in observatory accuracy contests, the Long Gene precision record is unsurpassed. For these reasons and for many more, Long Gene is correctly called the world's most honored watch. Yet you may buy and proudly give a Long Gene watch this Christmas for as little as $71.50. Now, notice the superb good taste of the styling of each and every one of these lovely Long Gene watches. Long Gene, the world's most honored watch. Premier product of the Long Gene Wittner Watch Company since 1866. Maker of watches of the highest character. This is Frank Knight again inviting you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Long Gene Chronoscope. A television journal of important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Long Gene, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Long Gene, sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem, Agency for Long Gene Wittner Watchers. This is the CBS television network.


The Large Hadron Collider lies in a tunnel below the border between France and Switzerland. A magnetic field 100,000 times stronger than Earth's bends the paths of charged particles emerging from high energy collision. The curved tracks of these particles reveal their mass, charge and energy. Meanwhile, high above our planet, Earth's magnetic field deflects charged particles coming from the sun and outer space. What is this invisible force that controls charged particles moving near the speed of light? Directs the flow of matter in the cosmos and creates a magnetic cocoon protecting life from the sun's deadly radiation. Our star, the sun, is the solar system's source of light and heat driving Earth's climate and bringing our planet to life. Magnetism channels the paths of hot ionized gases climbing upward from the sun's visible surface. These sunspots look harmless, but most of the sun's dramatic and potentially lethal eruptions begin in these active regions. Gases flow along these glowing arches, they rise up from the sun and then fall back, still trapped by the sun's gravity and ruled by its magnetic field. The sun's magnetic fields get tangled. Usually the sun's gravity pulls these provinces back to the sun, but if the magnetic field is twisted enough, the arches can break, releasing streams of hot gases into space in a CME or coronal mass ejection. If this CME is headed toward Earth, a violent blast of charged particles will slam into our protected magnetosphere in a day or two. Earth's magnetosphere has cracks caused by magnetic reconnection. The solar wind pulls reconnected field lines into the Earth's magnetic tail. These stretched field lines ultimately connect again, blasting charged particles into Earth's upper atmosphere and resulting in shimmering auroras near Earth's poles. The aurora borealis, or northern lights, occurs most often along a circular zone across Central Alaska, Canada, Greenland, northern Scandinavia and Russia. Because the magnetic tail is on the night side of Earth, the most intense, dynamic and beautiful aurora has occurred near midnight. The low orbit of the International Space Station keeps it within Earth's protective magnetic field. In early 2016, astronauts gathered in the Koopala, their favorite place to watch the Earth below. Anxiously, they looked northward, hoping to see and photograph an aurora. As their path crossed over Europe, they captured an aurora's green light along the northern horizon, dancing above Scandinavia. Gradually, it faded from view as their path moved southward over the Black Sea. Meanwhile, for the first time, a crew in Tromsø, Norway photographed the same aurora from the Earth's surface. The aurora is a mysterious and unpredictable display of ghostly lights in the night sky, and eerie sign that our planet is electrically connected to the Sun. Auroras can appear as long, narrow arcs extending overhead from horizon to horizon. From the side, they look like ribbons that kink, fold and swirl. Their flickering rays align to the Earth's magnetic field and ruffle like curtains in an imaginary wind. And also spread out like a heavenly crown engulfing the sky in a misty veil. In an auroral substorm, sheets twist into waves and curls. Our ancestors saw great dragons or serpents in the sky. In northern Europe, the aurora was the famous Bifrost, a glowing archway of the gods to travel from heaven to Earth. In America, they were spirits carrying lanterns as they sought the souls of dead hunters. Auroral rays follow the lines of force in Earth's magnetic field. Oxygen atoms emit a green light when hit by high-energy electrons. Low-energy electrons higher in the atmosphere cause oxygen atoms to glow red, giving the green aurora its red tip. These wispy auroras show us that our magnetic shield is still intact. When high-energy electrons strike nitrogen atoms, the atoms produce blue auroras at high altitudes and sometimes magenta auroras at low altitudes. The blending of aurora colors can produce purples, yellows, pinks and whites. When you see auroras from the side, you can tell that the different colors come from different heights in the atmosphere. This diffused, blood-red aurora spreads over the sky. During strong solar storms, these enormous red glows occur as far south as Florida and Texas. Auroras of all colors are signs that our planet is a life-bearing world with an atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen protected within Earth's magnetosphere. For centuries, sailors recognized that the star Polaris hovered very close to the north point in the sky.  Explorers could sail the northern oceans by observing the position of Polaris in the night sky. But on cloudy nights, they needed another device to chart their course. The magnetic compass reached western Europe in the early 13th century. With it, sailors could cross the planet's great oceans, discovering Earth's size and mapping its continents. The Earth's uncharted lands became places on a map. Its coastlines defined a world far larger than early sailors had imagined. The generator of Earth's magnetosphere lies deep in the planet's core. Here, currents of liquid iron rise and turn with the Earth's rotation. The resulting electric current in the moving molten iron generates Earth's magnetic field. This field in turn reinforces the currents that created it. The result is a geodynamo getting Earth its magnetic shield. This geodynamo turns Earth into a large bar magnet with north and south poles. We can see a bar magnet's magnetic field by dropping iron filings on a piece of paper above the magnet. The filings line up with the direction of the magnetic force. Earth's magnetic field has these same lines of force connecting its north and south poles. Creating this global magnetic shield required special conditions. Earth had to be large enough to have a molten core and had to rotate fast enough to produce an electrical current that generates the planet's magnetosphere. Many different animals can sense Earth's magnetic field through structures in their eyes or brains. If fish swim along the direction of Earth's magnetic field lines, they sense nothing. But if they swim across the magnetic field, they can detect a tiny electrical force. This force guides them as they migrate north and south during the year. Hammerhead sharks have special gel-filled organs called the ampullae of Lorenzini, which detect electric fields, both natural fields and those created from swimming across magnetic fields. Sensitivity to magnetic fields helps sharks and other fish swim in straight lines across the open ocean. The floor of the Atlantic Ocean tells us that Earth's magnetic field has not always been like it is today. A ridge runs from north to south in the Atlantic basin. Here magma flows upwards, spreads out, and turns into iron-rich rock. Like iron filings, the iron atoms in this rock are oriented to Earth's magnetic field at the time the rock hardened. From their changing orientation, we know that Earth's magnetic poles have flipped many times in geologic history. Currently, Earth's magnetic field is decreasing in strength each decade. There could be a reversal of Earth's magnetic poles soon, perhaps in the next thousand years. Our advanced civilization depends on electromagnetic fields in communication, transportation, electricity production, and power distribution. When the poles flip, the Earth will be temporarily without its magnetosphere. Astronauts and aircraft passengers could be grounded because there is no magnetic shield to protect them. The next magnetic pole reversal may be destructive and deadly. In March 2015, NASA launched a mission called the Magnetospheric Multiscale, or MMS, aboard an Atlas V rocket. Its mission is to observe the conditions that allow charged particles to penetrate Earth's magnetic shield. On the night of March 12th, a rocket lifted off from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, carrying the MMS spacecraft into Earth orbit. The Magnetospheric Multiscale mission requires four identical spacecraft working together to provide the first three-dimensional view of magnetic reconnection, a poorly understood process happening in Earth's magnetosphere and also on the Sun and throughout the universe. This suite of four spacecraft fly in a pyramid formation. MMS is the closest flying spacecraft formation ever launched. With the satellites just seven kilometers apart, these satellites are also the highest altitude spacecraft to use GPS navigation. The MMS spacecraft traveled directly through magnetic reconnection sites. Reconnection occurs when magnetic field lines annihilate each other and release a gigantic burst of energy. This fundamental process taps energy stored in the magnetic field and converts it into fast-moving charged particles. The MMS orbit was designed to fly precisely in the places where reconnection occurs. The discoveries from the mission will also tell us about reconnection in the Sun's atmosphere, in other stars, and in the vicinity of black holes and neutron stars. Astronauts in the International Space Station are within Earth's magnetosphere, but astronauts leaving Earth's cocoon on their way to the moon or Mars have no magnetic shield and face a much greater danger. From 1969 to 1972, the United States sent 21 astronauts beyond Earth's protected magnetosphere. These Apollo missions were scheduled for a time of minimum sunspot activity when the solar wind is weakest. Yet on August 2nd, 1972, the Sun produced three powerful flares in a span of 15 hours. The Apollo astronauts in their command module would not have survived if this flare had come four months earlier during Apollo 16 or four months later during Apollo 17. Apollo astronauts on the moon's surface were in sunlight and even less protected than those in the command module. Of the inner planets, only Mercury and Earth have magnetospheres. Mercury's magnetosphere is a hundred times weaker than Earth's. Perhaps future human settlements near Mercury's poles will benefit from this protective field. Venus is the size of Earth, but rotates so slowly that no dynamo could form in its core. The solar wind bombards its atmosphere directly. Although its rotation is fast enough, Mars lacks a liquid iron core to create a global magnetic field. Without a magnetic shield, the solar wind reaches the planet's thin atmosphere and has robbed Mars of most of its hydrogen and oxygen. Mars is now a dry desert, but it has features indicating that the red planet once had surface water at an atmosphere thick enough to support a water cycle, seas, and perhaps life. When Mars' core froze out, its magnetic shield disappeared. Now the surface water is gone, leaving only its polar ice caps and a hint of water vapor in the thin, martian atmosphere. Jupiter has metallic hydrogen flowing in its core, creating the dynamo to power a magnetosphere 20,000 times stronger than Earth's. Saturn has a smaller layer of metallic hydrogen than Jupiter's and therefore a weaker magnetic field. Uranus contains both gases and ices of water, ammonia, and methane. Although this planet rotates on its side, its tilted magnetic shield protects like the other giant planets. Neptune's magnetic field is also strongly tilted, resulting in a lopsided magnetic shield with its poles occasionally exposed to the solar blast. This is just the beginning of our quest to find magnetic fields beyond our solar system. We can detect the effects of magnetic forces and wavelengths beyond our vision. Arrays of radio telescopes working together pick up radio waves from charged particles accelerated by magnetic fields far beyond our solar system. These telescopes have detected emissions from a nearby brown dwarf, about 20 light years from Earth. These emissions indicate the presence of a magnetic field. Brown dwarfs are stillborn stars, too small to make their own light. As electrons spiral down into a brown dwarf's atmosphere, they produce radio emissions and excite hydrogen atoms. Unlike the green auroras from oxygen, the hydrogen atoms in a brown dwarf emit a glowing pink light. These auroras are about a million times brighter and more powerful than auroras on Earth. The discovery of auroras beyond our solar system will help us detect auroras around other objects, especially distant planets. Observatories on orbit and on Earth have found evidence of planets orbiting other stars. We need to be able to detect magnetic fields at interstellar distances to identify which planets could have conditions suitable for life. The nearby giant planet HD189733B eclipses its star once every two Earth days. When this happens, we see a dip in the star's light caused by the bow shock of its magnetic field and another dip caused by the planet. This is our first discovery of a magnetosphere around an extra solar planet. We live in the disk of a barred spiral galaxy of over 200 billion stars. Its spiral arms stretch around us, creating the hazy Milky Way band. Our galaxy's appearance changes dramatically when we observe only the polarized radio noise, scattered by dust grains and oriented by the galaxy's magnetic field. Loops and arches show the direction of the magnetic field lines that outline our galaxy's spiral arms. The dark band marks the center of the galactic plane. Our galaxy also looks very different in gamma rays, the most energetic part of the spectrum. Orbiting gamma ray observatories like Fermi can pinpoint the most energetic light sources in the universe. These are often collapsed stars with tightly wound magnetic fields focusing the light they emit. The crab nebula is the remnant of a supernova explosion that humans saw almost a thousand years ago. Deep inside the nebula lies the star's rapidly spinning imploded core. Here, an intense magnetic field focuses radiation at the star's magnetic poles, producing a beam of radiation sweeping across space like a lighthouse beacon. Here, the star's magnetic field contains and directs the flow of charged matter. Aurora's crown our homeworld. They promise that our magnetic field still shields us from deadly solar storms, as well as cosmic rays from far away supernovas. Within our protective cocoon, life has flourished, evolving into more complex forms and finally giving rise to sentient beings, aware of the magnetosphere, which surrounds and protects the life-bearing Earth below.


Hi everyone, Joe for JaspysCaseRakes.com coming at you with a box break of Luminance Football. This is the last filler we got to do to unlock that dual case break, which is right over here. That's coming up in the next video. Big thanks to this group for making it happen. There are the teams right there. Let's roll it. Let's randomize. Names and teams four and six. Ten times each. Different dice for the giveaway part as always. And then final time, there's everybody's name. So this is a hobby box, so there's three autographs and one memorabilia card in here, so it could be some surprises here. Four to six. Ten times for the teams. Two, three, four. All right, there's the first half of the list right here. And then there's the second half of the list right over there. No trades in these filler breaks. Jason Jaspys wasn't Oregon ladies and gentlemen, watching his Ducks play. So Vanessa said you flew into Portland, then drove? Yeah, I flew to Portland and then my cousin drove us to Jamestown to our car. Your cousin lived up there? Yeah, one of Vanessa's cousins, he moved up there a long time ago within an hour. Oh, nice. And he just had a kid, so he was like a few months old over there. We went to the game. And then I didn't realize it, but if I really would have planned this correctly, he was down to do it, but I was already tired. The Dodgers were in Seattle, so I thought I'd be drunk to Seattle the next day. How long was the drive? That was three hours. And I wouldn't have done it, but it was the back-to-back days of driving four hours. That's a little rough. Yeah, so I was like, no, we can't do that. He's like, oh, I've been really wanting to see the Dodgers in Seattle, but I was like, I just really found out today. Oh, you sure planned ahead on that. Yeah, I didn't know that. But I told Chaddie, like, let's go. I was like, I know, bro. It was like, I know. I was like, and it was a one o'clock game, so I was going to get on it and leave at eight in the morning. I was like, nah, dude, that's just way too much. We left around third quarter if it wasn't already a lot, but we didn't even get home to like a lot of it, and it was already late. Wow. So the next guy's in Portland, though. He's in Portland. So you drove to the game, then drove back. Yeah. Why is this not printing? So yeah, we just went to the same thing in Portland. That's nice. Stadium's cool. Yeah, it's really nice. It's a little small, but it's really packed. I was just having like, there's just too many Oregon Duck fans. Like, there's no way anyone will ever take over that stadium. Like, there's so many cars, literally with flags in Portland driving down the 5-3 with us. Like, I was like, you know they're going to the game. I was like, was Oregon going to the game? Big like Oregon Duck fans? Yeah. The only big thing there might as like, why are you in an error state? I'll just rip this box right here. Oh, wait. Isn't Joe, Joe's an Oregon. But you weren't always an Oregon, were you? Or maybe you were. Yeah, that's right. Wait, so are you, what is your collegiate allegiance? It does say PCTL of the letter. Oh, I'm stalking Joe right now. Oh, he's in, okay. I won't dox him, but he's in a southwest Portland. Oh, he's a Washington State alum. So. So I guess you would both hate Washington. If he's a WSU alum. Unless that's Wyoming State. Oh, okay. Yes. Okay. So yeah. Jason is a fan of Oregon. Yeah, I was like, why don't I go next week? Because then I realized I forgot. Like the cheapest tickets for Hawaii game was like 20 bucks. You know, it's going to be a lot anyway. So next week's game was like 300. Were they playing next week? They played Colorado. Oh, Coach Prime experience. They're about to find out what were in there. 20 out of 25, three color patch. Damien Pierce. That's Texans edition. I think he's somewhere else now, right? Damien Pierce. This will be for Aaron with the Texans. There's a nice Anthony Richardson, 31 out of 50 for the Colts. That's for you, Joe. It's not bad. Got his first W. We'd like seeing it numbered too. There's Will Mallory to 100. Also for the Colts. Do you want your raiders? It was close early. I was in Vegas. I was out late last night. Woke up early for the raiders. Because it was close early on. I was so happy after the first quarter. And then I progressively got sadder and sadder. But what happened? It just kind of fell off. And then I just finished the game in my room. I was at the sports book. I was like, yeah, let's go. And then it was just sad time. But it's like they just fell off, right? Yeah.  And the raiders, they just impose their will. Another Anthony Richardson. You know how many minutes? So each quarter is 15 minutes, right? You know how long the Bills had possession in the third quarter? Like 12? Like 12, 13 minutes. I mean, look at that.  It was that kind of game. All right, here's another Anthony Richardson. Just a base though, Joe. Here is Packers back up, Sean Clifford. 302 out of 350 for Green Bay. That'll be for Aaron. So what? There's two autographs and one memorabilia. Three autos and one memorabilia. So we're looking for one more, two more autos. You already saw the memorabilia. Ah, boo, points. That takes the place of the auto. Still should be one more. And there's Bryce Young. We're still looking for his first win. There's a Dontevious Wix 200 for Green Bay. Bryce Young obviously goes to Carolina. That'll be for Aaron as well. He got a Chase Brown to 75 and a Super Bowl autograph. Shaquille Barrett with the Broncos. Barrett could have hardly picked a better team with which to break into the NFL, the Super Bowl 50 champion, Broncos. We're one of the great defense first champions of all time. Among his season highlights, Barrett had 5.5 quarterback sacks, forced four fumbles during his rookie campaign. There he is, Super Bowl 50 on-card autograph for my rivals, the Broncos. With Denver. All right, here's what we're going to do with the points. We're going to the first person that does not get a hip-raid dual-case spot, so spot 10, right, because we're giving away nine. Spot 10 will get the 250 points. Just a, not the best consolation, but it's a little something, better than nothing. All right, so there's the whole list. Let's roll it, randomize it one and three, four times. Top nine, get into the hip-raid break. The jazzy exclusive. One, two, three, and fourth and final time. So spot 10, well, spot 11, nothing. Sorry, Joe, you got to be up there somewhere, though. There you go, Joe with the 250 points, that's something. Top nine, you're the hip-raid break, though. That's Eric, Aaron, Joe, Steve, Joe, Joe, Aaron and Aaron. There you go, Joe, you got some spots in there. There you go, top nine. After four, we'll see you in the next video for the break. Jasper's Case Breaks.com.


One. Oh, no. Not another parking ticket. That's the second one this week. Why did I get a ticket for parking here? I thought this was a free parking zone. Maybe you can only park here after working hours. Is there a sign around anywhere? Oh, you're right. There's one over there. I didn't even notice it. Looks like you can't park here till after 6 p.m. How much is the fine? Would you believe it? $60. Two. I wonder why that traffic officer is signaling me. Perhaps he means you're driving too fast. No, I don't think so. The speed limit is 60, and I'm only going 55. Hmm. I wonder why there are no other cars in this lane. What do you mean? Well, you see how the other cars are all in the lane next to us? All right. I think this one is just for buses and taxis. They really should put up better signs around here. Three. That's weird. The last few cars driving toward us were flashing their lights. I see what you mean. There's another one. Maybe my lights are on or something. Let me check. No, they're off. Do you think there's an accident up ahead? Maybe you'd better slow down. Oh, now I see what's happening. There's a patrol car up ahead checking people's speed. How nice of those other drivers to let me know. Well, I'm within the speed limit. At least I am now.


Over the last two decades, there has been an improvement in the quality of global immunization coverage data. However, this improvement has not been uniform across regions or countries. This study found that the probability of data quality flags decreased by 5.1% per year globally, with the steepest declines occurring in Africa, minus 9.6%, minus 13.0%, to minus 5.8%, P less than 0.001, followed by Europe, minus 5.4%, minus 9.2 to minus 1.6, P equals 0.0055, and the Americas, minus 4.9%, minus 9.2 to minus 0.6, P equals 0.026. Additionally, most country groups showed a statistically significant decline, and none had a statistically significant increase. These findings suggest that more work needs to be done to ensure that all countries are reporting accurate and reliable immunization coverage data.


It's my pleasure this morning to introduce a Douglas Rasmussen for our FA Hayek Memorial Lecture. And this lecture is sponsored by Greg and Joy Moran, who are here with us this morning, so thank you very much for your kind sponsorship. Doug Rasmussen was a professor of philosophy at St. John's University in New York City for almost 30 years, and he now holds emeritus status at St. John's. He's a senior affiliated scholar with the Institute for Economic Inquiry at Creighton University, and a senior scholar for the Institute of Economic Studies in Europe. He's an extremely well-known philosopher in the Thomist tradition. He's authored a number of books, mostly with his longtime colleague Doug Denial. So Doug and Doug, this will be part of the Doug and Doug show. Those books include Liberty in Nature, An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order, Norms of Liberty, A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics, The Perfectionist Turn, and The Realist Turn. He's also co-edited with Tibor McCann, an important book on libertarian theory called Liberty for the 21st Century Contemporary Libertarian Thought. He's authored over 100 articles in anthologies and in journals such as The American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, The American Philosophical Quarterly, International Philosophical Quarterly, The Journal of Social Philosophy, The New Scholasticism, The Personalist Public Affairs Quarterly, and many, many other publications. He has served on the Steering Committee for the Ein Rand Society and is a member of the Executive Council for the American Catholic Philosophical Association. He's a co-editor with Doug Denial of The Philosophic Thought of Ein Rand, a very important book published in 1984 that was designed to introduce Ein Rand's thought to professional academic philosophers. His research areas, his areas of interest include epistemology, ontology, ethics, and political philosophy, as well as the moral foundations of capitalism. A very important topic for us here. He's currently contributing an essay to a Fechschrift that he is editing, and he's assisting in developing a center for natural law and natural rights at the University of Bucharest in Romania. He's a contributor to law and liberty and a member of the Association of Private Enterprise Education. He also knew Murray Rothbard quite well, and like others, I'm sure has interesting stories to tell about those, about his interactions with Murray. So Doug, thank you very much for coming to Auburn, and we look forward to your remarks. Thank you so much. I'm both pleased and honored to be here. I have admired the work done by the Mises Institute for many years. As you can see, my topic is Rothbard's account of the axiom of human action, a neo-Aristotelian defense. This is a topic I have been thinking about for some time. The screen display will provide an outline of my talk, which also includes some important quotations. As F.A. Hayek noted, nobody can be a great economist who is only an economist. And I'm even tempted to add that the economist who is only an economist is likely to become a nuisance, if not a positive danger. Murray Rothbard understood this truth, and he followed its admonition. He examined questions that pertain to the ultimate ground for economic thinking, and was not afraid to note their philosophical dimensions. Murray was fearless. In this regard, Rothbard has famously stated, whether we consider the action axiom a priori or empirical depends on our ultimate philosophical position. My own epistemological position rests on Aristotle and St. Thomas rather than Kant. And hence, I would interpret the proposition differently. I would consider the axiom a law of reality rather than a law of thought and hence empirical rather than a priori. I seek in this lecture to provide a framework for a research agenda for a neo-aristitian to mystic explanation and defense of the axiom of human action. Oh, by the way, the terms action axiom and axiom of human action will be used interchangeably in this presentation. The action axiom holds that human action is purposeful behavior. Why is a neo-aristitian to mystic explanation and defense of the axiom of human action necessary? Why does it matter? There are at least two reasons. First, it can be seen as a response to the challenge to economic reasoning presented by Amartya Sen in his seminal essay, Rational Fools. This challenge involves an economic point and an ethical point. Second, defending Rothbard's account of the axiom of human action was something that Rothbard told me he wanted to see developed. I can, if asked, discuss Rothbard's request after this presentation. But for now, I will concentrate on Sen's challenge, at least part of it. Amartya Sen argues in Rational Fools that one cannot base an account of human action on the assumption that all human action is self-interested and that appealing to revealed preferences is tautological and of little or no use for understanding human action. So limiting one's understanding of human action to consistency in choice behavior is insufficient to explain human action or ground economic theorizing. This is the economic method point.  There is more to human life than utility maximization. Rothbard's response would be, it is not necessary to assume that all human conduct is self-interested.  To say the least, nominal definitions will not work. They simply avoid or evade the problem. Rather, what is necessary to ground economic explanations is the recognition of the purposeful character of human action. The purposeful character of human action results from the very nature of human beings. This approach does not consider what might be the motives for taking an action or whether the end of an action is choice worthy. Rather, it simply focuses on the formal relations between ends and means. The notion of Homo agents as developed in Austrian economics should replace Homo economicus as the foundation for economic theorizing. Rothbard's response to Sen's ethical point would be as follows.  Rothbard's understanding of the action axiom does not entail non-cognitivism in ethics or political philosophy. Not to consider whether one's ends are choice worthy is not equivalent to claiming that there is no basis for determining whether one's ends are choice worthy. Further, since Rothbard was an advocate of natural moral law and natural rights, he would argue that Homo agents and Homo moralists are complementary, not antagonistic accounts of human nature. In this regard, it is worth noting that for Aquinas, the first principle of practical reasoning is good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided. This principle does not itself determine the basic goods and virtues of the self-perfecting life, but it does express the end-oriented character of human action. However, since Douglas Denial and I have developed a version of natural moral law and a basis for natural rights elsewhere, I leave a discussion of the complementarity of Rothbard's account of the axiom of human action with natural law and natural rights for another occasion. I will instead concentrate on what would be Rothbard's response to Sen's economic method point. For Rothbard, the claim that human action is purposeful, which he regards as the foundation for economic reasoning, is neither merely an empirical generalization, nor simply a tautology. So for Rothbard's view of the action axiom to work, it must be possible for a proposition, in this case the action axiom, to be both a necessary truth and about reality. The neo-Aristotelian to a mystic tradition is noteworthy in this regard because it upholds and defends the claim that there can be necessary truths that pertain to reality. That human action is purposeful, is for Rothbard an axiomatic, self-evident necessary truth. One, it is a self-evident primordial fact that individuals engage in conscious actions toward chosen goals. Two, the action axiom is defended, not proved, via negative demonstration, a dialectical argument in a manner similar to what Aristotle used in defending the principle of non-contradiction. It is used against any would-be denier of the action axiom. Three, this defense shows the self-refuting character of the attempt to deny the action axiom. However, what this argument does not show is, A, what grounds the necessary truth of the action axiom. That is, what makes it a necessary truth, and B, why this type of action is necessary to being human. In response, Rothbard states, All human beings act by virtue of their existence and their nature as human beings. We could not conceive of human beings who do not act purposefully, who have no ends in view that they desire and attempt to attain. Things that did not act, that did not behave purposefully, would no longer be classified as human. So, what is it that makes the action axiom a necessary truth and purposive behavior necessary to being human?  Purposeful action is necessary to being human, but now we need to consider more deeply what is involved in this answer. Rothbard is an empiricist about the source of knowledge. Yet a rationalist about the justification for knowledge in some cases. He does not think that consulting sense experience precludes grasping what is necessary and universal. Accordingly, he is a direct perceptual realist who holds that what is presented in sense perception is not necessarily recognized by sense perception. And it is thus possible for our senses to carry a message that they themselves cannot interpret. This requires the human intellect to uncover what sense perception presents. So that there is no bifurcation of human knowledge into two kinds, empirical sensory and rational conceptual. Rather, human cognition is empirical and rational, sensory and conceptual. As Rothbard states, I would deny as an Aristotelian and neo-Thomist any such alleged laws of logical structure that the human mind necessarily imposes on the chaotic structure of reality. Instead, I would call all such laws laws of reality, which the mind apprehends from investigating and collating the facts of the real world. My view is that the fundamental axiom and subsidiary axioms are derived from the experience of reality and are therefore in the broadest sense empirical. I would agree with the Aristotelian realist that its doctrine is radically empirical, far more so than the post-humian empiricism which is dominant in modern philosophy. Rothbard's account of the action axiom is dependent not only on a view of sense perception, but also on a view of conception and thus abstraction developed by the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. However, there are objections to this view of conception. Locke says abstractions provide only a partial conception of the nature of something. Barkley denies that we can have abstract ideas. Kant says they cannot be based on sense perception, but only imposed by the human mind. Geach and Sellers have in the 20th century made similar charges against abstraction. So, how does Rothbard's Aristotelian-Thomistic view fare against the charge that abstraction falsifies or provides only a partial conception of the nature of things? The classic reply to this charge is that abstraction does not require either falsification or subtraction. It holds that even though our thought must answer to reality if we are to find truth, there is nonetheless a difference between thinking something is thus and so and it's being thus and so. Our knowledge must be of reality, but that does not mean that our knowledge is reality. Yet, if the way that things exist in thought is different from the way that things exist apart from their being thought about, then how can we ever avoid falsehood? The answer, of course, depends on the manner in which thought is different from the things that are thought about. But how are we to understand this? Anthony Kinney notes, to think a thing to be otherwise than it is is certainly to think falsely. But if all that is meant by thinking a thing other than it is is that the way it is with our thinking is different from the way it is with the thing that we are thinking about in its own existence, then there need be no falsehood involved. To think that Henry VIII had no weight is to think a false thought. But there is no falsehood in thinking of Henry VIII without thinking of his weight. Henry VIII could never exist without having some weight or other. But a thought of Henry VIII can certainly exist without any thought at all about his weight. Moreover, there is, then, one, a type of thinking that involves considering the form or character of something in an indeterminate manner so that its individual differences are not specified but are nonetheless regarded as requiring specific determination. For example, the concept human being. And this type of thinking can be contrasted with, too, a type of thinking that separates or excludes specific determinations from the form or character of something. For example, the concept humanity. The first type of thinking is, this comes from our medieval sources, abstraction without precision. And the second is abstraction with precision. In the case of precision, the form or character is considered as not related to its specific determination. For example, humanity. And for abstraction without precision, the form or character is not considered as related to its specific determination. For example, human being. As Aquinas notes, it is clear then that the essence of man is signified by two terms, man and humanity, but in different ways. The term man expresses it as a whole because it does not presend from the designation of matter but contains it implicitly and indistinctly. This is why the term man can be predicated of individuals. But the term humanity signifies the essence as a part because it includes only what belongs to man as man, presending from all designation of matter. As a result, it cannot be predicated of individual man. Thus, we can abstractly consider the form or character that is the attributes of individual human beings. Say Barack Obama, Donald Trump and George Bush without precision. When we do so, we are considering their form or character indeterminately as a conceptual unit or universal. But we know nonetheless that their form or character must have some determination to abstract in this sense then is not to subtract. That is, it is not to reduce one's awareness to part of a being but to grasp it as a whole. We can say of each of these individuals, they are human beings. But we cannot say of each that they are humanity. To abstract without precision then is neither to falsify nor to lessen our apprehension of what is encountered through sense perception. For as said, the form or character, when so considered, is not excluded or cut off from its individual differences, which are treated as implicit. Indeed, this manner of abstraction enhances our apprehension and allows us to discover what human beings essentially are. Rothbard's view of the action axiom depends on abstraction without precision. It does not positively exclude individual differences of individual human beings, but instead treats these differences as implicit. These differences only become explicit when each instance of what is signified by the concept human being is considered. For example, Obama, Trump or Bush. What is common to these individuals must be expressed determinately in their concrete forms or characters of these individuals. We thus can say what is common to human beings and thus speak of human nature without either turning human nature into a universal part of individual human beings or treating abstraction as a process of subtraction. It is from our conceptual grasp of human nature that the axiom of human action is justified. One does not need to consult future experience to justify this claim because one is speaking of a certain kind of being and how it acts. One is not making an inference from some to all, but moving from a conceptual awareness of the nature of one thing to other instances of that same nature. Whatever pertains to a human being according to his or her nature will also be true of every individual with that same nature. There is then no principal difficulty in the action axiom being empirically known and being necessarily true. Because the process of abstraction without precision allows the natures of the things to determine what a concept signifies. What a concept signifies involves both an intention which is not limited to what is only explicitly considered or what is stated in a definition and an extension that applies to all individuals that are instances of a certain kind, be they past, present, or future. The basic principle here is that all natures are individualized and all individuals are natured. This approach rejects the view that the axiom of human action and the principles that result from it are merely empirical generalizations. This approach offers a basic alternative to contemporary accounts of this axiom. It provides the basis for applying economic principles to human actions we observe so as to understand what is happening and why. Or to put it in a slightly different manner, and as will be noted towards the end of these remarks, this approach provides a way for the economist not to get lost in the so-called empirical data. Rothbard holds that the axiom of human action is not only empirical and a priori, but also a self-evident necessary truth. What is crucial to Graspier is that the self-contradictory character of denying that human action is purposeful is based not on an appeal to what one can or cannot imagine or conceive, all of some criterion in one's mind, but instead on what is known about human beings and their conduct. One does not know what is true, or even necessarily true, or possible, or impossible via some process of inspectiomentus, but rather by the apprehension of a reality that exists and is what it is apart from our cognition. Most importantly in this regard, Rothbard's account of the axiom of human action depends on the Aristotelian-Thomistic rejection of the central epistemological assumption of so much modern empiricist and rationalist thought, namely rejecting that percepts and concepts are the immediate and direct objects of cognition, and holding instead that they are only that by which we know. Rothbard's account of the axiom is based on the insight that the basic tools of human cognition, from percepts to concepts to propositions to arguments to theories, have an inherently relational or intentional character. Their nature is not merely explained by reference to something else, their nature is a reference, a respect, an ordination to something else. Hence, the tools of human cognition cannot be known first and for themselves, without their first being at least a logically prior cognition of something other than themselves. It is thus not possible to hold that all awareness is at the very beginning and to the very end enclosed within itself, as if it were one's private picture show or language. The so-called way of ideas is a non-starter. Sometimes, it is argued that to claim that we can know necessary truths requires that we hold that human beings are infallible, but this is not the case. Three observations are important in this regard. First, being aware that you may be mistaken doesn't mean that you are aware that you are a fallible human being. It means that you have a concrete reason to suppose that you may be mistaken in this case. Second, fallibilism and necessity are perfectly compatible. Fallibilism is a thesis about our liability to err, not a thesis about the modal status possible falsity of what we believe. Third, it is indeed odd to what extent it is generally supposed that any recognition of essences in things, coupled as it is with the logic of what statements and necessary truths about the world, must inevitably bring in its train and extreme dogmatism claiming an absolute certainty for its pronouncements on what is necessarily the case. However, neither essentialism in philosophy nor the what logic that is associated with it necessarily involves any such pretensions to infallibility and knowledge. So, one need not claim infallibility to hold an or to or to hold an extreme dogmatism in order to hold that the axiom of human action is a necessary truth. Also, there is no need to interpret fallibilism so strongly that it conflicts with holding that the axiom is a necessary truth. Rothbard claims that the axiom of human action is grounded in human nature. How does this work? Let us begin by considering the real definition. The real definition of human being states in brief what is signified by the natural kind term human being. It notes the overall limits of human nature and it is like a title on a file folder that directs and sorts one's investigations, though it does not state all the characteristics of human nature. The real definition per genus set differentium of a human being is rational animal. This defines the nature of a human being. The genus of the real definition is animal and so everything that is true of being an animal is also true of a human being. So, a human being is also living, sentient, individual and intentative. Moreover, what is true of each of these considerations is true as well of a human being. For example, being intentative involves space and time. Differentium, rationality is determined not only by reference to what differentiates a human being from other animals, but by what does so most fundamentally. That is, it is the feature upon which the other necessary features are dependent. A human being is rational. This means human beings have a distinctive faculty of awareness. Humans have a conceptual capacity. Such a capacity fundamentally involves the power to grasp the world in conceptual terms. That is to say, the power to form classifications, develop theories, formulate hypotheses, come to judgments, derive conclusions, reflect on various subjects be they past, present or future, make evaluations, develop purposes and plan actions. This capacity is expressed in speculative reasoning, the pursuit of truth, and practical reasoning, the pursuit of human good. It is manifested in our language as well as in our development of culture and conventions, and indeed in those practices that constitute what could be called forms of life. Rationality understood broadly as a conceptual capacity is the fundamental modality by which human beings consider and take on the issues of human life. It is the fundamental operating feature of the human life form or nature. Let us now consider three statements by Rothbard that illustrate this view of human nature. Human beings possess a rational consciousness. Stones, molecules, planets cannot choose their courses. Their behavior is strictly and mechanically determined for them. Only human beings possess free will and consciousness, for they are conscious and they can and indeed must choose their course of action. To ignore this primordial fact about the nature of man, to ignore his volition, his free will is to misconstrue the facts of reality and therefore to be profoundly and radically unscientific. The fundamental axiom then for the study of man is the existence of individual consciousness. Not being omniscient, a man must learn. He must ever adopt ideas and act upon them, choosing ends and the means to attain these ends. The true science of man bases itself upon the existence of individual human beings, upon individual life and consciousness. The true science of man concentrates on the individual as of central, epistemological, and ethical importance. In these passages Rothbard is appealing to an array of facts that pertain to the natures of human beings. This knowledge is based on sense perception, but it is not the result of any special experience or experiment. Instead, it is based on general experience that nearly everyone possesses. Rothbard is also following Aquinas in linking free will and rational consciousness. For as Aquinas states, man is master of his actions through his reason and will, whence to the free will is defined as the faculty and will of reason. Self-direction and the exercise of reason are not separate acts of two isolated capacities, but distinct aspects of the same conscious act. Human reason is, in its very essence, a self-directed activity. Rothbard is thus endorsing the idea of agent causation. The character of the explanation and defense of the axiom of human action offered here is not merely a case of a rationalistic unpacking of the meaning of the concept human being, as if it were some private internal repository of knowledge or an isolated atom of meaning, nor is it trying to deduce the axiom of human action from the definition of a human being. Strictly speaking, concepts and indeed definitions do not have meanings. Rather, they are meanings. Their proper and ultimate nature consists in being of or about something other than themselves. So it is always to reality that we must look first in understanding what Rothbard is saying about the action axiom. Finally, and most importantly, Rothbard requires, excuse me, Rothbard's account requires recognizing that as living things, human beings are teleological beings that cannot be understood for what they are, apart from the fact that their human reason and volition, and thus human action, are end-oriented. Humans have no choice either about being end-oriented or about the need to choose ends, nor indeed do they have any choice about what their reason is to be employed to attain worthwhile lives. Humans must direct their reason to both understand the world and achieve various ends or goals they think worthy of pursuit. Fundamentally, humans have no choice about what they essentially are, and it is upon that fact that the axiom of human action rests, as Rothbard states, man's necessity to choose means that at any given time he is acting to bring about some end in the immediate or distant future. That is, that he has purposes. The steps he takes to achieve his ends are his means. Man is born with no innate knowledge of what ends to choose or how to use which means to achieve them. Having no inborn knowledge of how to survive and prosper, he must learn what ends and means to adopt. And he's liable to make errors along the way. But only his reasoning mind can show him his goals and how to attain them. This is what the action axiom involves, and it is the starting point for economic theory. The importance of the action axiom in providing the foundation for a theoretical approach to economics, particularly to price theory, was brought home in a recent Wall Street Journal article by Professor Alex Salter of Texas Tech University, who said, The a-theoretical approach of contemporary economists makes them particularly susceptible to the technocratic pretensions of the center left. If, contrary to the claims of price theory, there are no enduring laws of economics, then there is no reason to stop the technocrats from tinkering. Many of these economists don't realize that they are being politically compromised. They see it as just the facts, ma'am, pragmatism. In reality, it is ideology sneaking in through the back door. Regardless of how the justification of the rest of the propositions of praxeology and economic theorizing might be fair, regardless of how we go on and try to consider the application of economic principles to particular situations. Rothbard's account of the axiom of human action, when explained and defended in neo-aristitian-tomistic terms, provides a viable and powerful alternative to positivist, constructivist, and neo-pragmatist accounts. It allows for the possibility that there are economic laws, not merely empirical generalizations, and that these laws are necessary truths reflective of reality and are thus not merely tautologies or human constructs. It is an account that economic theory desperately needs. And as I think of it, it is an account that philosophy desperately needs. No, as I think of it, it is an account our culture desperately needs. And here are some references. Thanks so much.


work. EFNN, Deadline News Update. Hi everyone, Basel Chapman on this 10th day of June. My pleasure to be here and I'm the host of the Tiger Technicians Hour coming up straight after this Tiger Financial News Network New Time Update. I'm also the author of the opening cold day newsletter and wow, this is quite a market. Well, we're looking at the down 171 at $27,099. Made a high three days ago of $27,580. That was a big D. Remember at a D, we're always saying that's where other things can happen. But there are a lot of signs that are saying, yes, we could pull back a tad, but there's just enough internal energy to have another push to slightly higher highs. And then I think we've got to be careful. If you look at the weekly, I'll talk about that in a moment when we get to my Tiger Technicians Hour. Leg C, it's Wednesday, almost halfway through the week. And we've got a doji candle. How this closes on Friday is going to be very important. Look at the S&P. S&P made a high also three days ago at $32,333. And we're trading now at $31,099. No big deal. It's just a sideways move slightly lower. I still see internal strength, like a flat stochastic at 94%. This is a doji candle, but it's halfway through the week in the weekly chart. Leg C, I think we'll still have to go to a D before we start making the weekly D, before we start making other decisions. Yes, answer to the question, are we still longer down? Absolutely, from just under $21,000 and still along those calls for those who have kept the calls and sold 300% and 100% for 400%. The last batch has had about 10.5%. They're trading now at about 80 something. So let's go on. We've got the QQQ123 trading at a new. Does this sound repetitive to you? I'm sorry, that's the way it is. Maybe for the past week, maybe for the past two weeks, maybe for almost two and a half weeks, I've been saying a new recovery high. And what are we doing today? We actually gapped up to a new recovery high, a new recovery high, $245.96 trading right now, $245.26. As long as this leadership, that's going to be really, really good. The other thing I want you to do, oh, just before we go out here, don't forget, you've got my show coming up right now, the target admissions hour. We'll be going through a lot of these patterns. IWM is down 2.39 at QD. I just hope to see you in a few minutes. Otherwise, tomorrow at this time, have a great day.


Ruth, Mira Malokum, from Scheme Sam speaks on her HIV role. Playing Ruth on Scheme Sam has been a blessing for actress Mira Malokum. The 24-year-old, who plays a teenager living with HIV, said her journey on the SABC One Sophie has been amazing. Ruth debuted as the girlfriend of Koloy, played by Chepo Senegal, earlier last year and has since grown to be a big part of the show. Speaking to Sunbuzz, Mira said she learned a lot as an actress and as a person, thanks to Ruth.  To be chosen and trusted for such a character was important. It's not only entertainment but I get to teach people and also learn a lot about HIV. For a 16-year-old who's living with HIV, Ruth is firm, brave, and confident.  She doesn't let people or the stigma around the virus affect her. I admire how she stands up for herself and I've learned a lot from her. The University of Limpopo Performing Arts graduate said she has always wanted to be a storyteller, and that's why she studied acting. I've always been this overconfident girl who knew what she wanted to be. I knew I wanted to put myself out there and tell important stories, said Mira. And I wanted more for myself than just acting. I don't just want to be an actress. I want to write, direct and do more. I recently graduated from university. The moment her character, Ruth, is studying in Cape Town. While Ruth is in Cape Town, I am currently working behind the scenes as a script coordinator. However, I do hope Ruth will return soon because her role is important. I'd love to see her character develop and see what the future has in store for her, she said. In the meantime, I've been exercising my acting muscles. I've been working on myself and enhancing my talent and skills.


In this video, let us talk about NLP tools. There is one famous tool, I just want to introduce that and also what is the latest in natural language processing. What I talked about back of words is 10 years old. So, there is one tool core nlp.run. This library is been created by Stanford University and it is available for more than 15 years and they have started with the basic back of words approach in a Java library. Now, it is up-level in different script languages. So, I was talking about how to compute get the dictionary from the given sentence, you just have to use this library, it will give you automatically all these things. So, this library is very, very interesting. NLP what we saw is very, very like a tip of iceberg. It is not complete. What is NLP? NLP can do lot of other things in it. I just want to show you a demo of this core nlp.run. So, if you go type core nlp.run, you will get this particular page. You can type any text to annotate. They have a version, you can download them. And you can do annotation based on parts of speech, POS tags, named entities, dependency pass was a dependency between these two sentences and everything. So, I am going to put the English, the different languages. Let us put English, because I just want to use the existing sentence. I do not type anything. The quick brown fox jumped over the lacy doc. You know, this is very famous sentence. It includes all the a to z letters. It is what we type. When you try to learn type writing, you might have just started with this quick brown fox jumped over the lacy doc. So, part of speech, it is kind of determine the slick object, quick brown. So, adjectives and fox is a noun here. And verb is jump. So, you see, it is what I am trying to say is this particular tool, if you type the word, it automatically identifies who is noun, what is a verb, what is object, what is adjective, everything is identified automatically. So, this tool has been created with a lot of training data. So, you can use it directly. You just have to use this particular library and call this particular function called part of speech, it will give you these values. And also, if you want a basic dependency like fox is adjectives on the quick brown is on the fox. It is not on any other terms like this is determined, this d is on this particular noun. What is the dependency of this d? And let us see it is very interesting. So, jumped over, all jumped over, jump is on the dog, the fox jumped, this is exactly the relation between fox and the dog is jumped. That is what it exactly identifies. It extracts the information from this test automatically. So, if you want a more dependencies, enhance dependencies also there. And more importantly, the information extraction I was talking about. So, it extracts the information of these two things.  If you consider fox is the entity, dog is the entity, the relation between these two is jump. Let us go back to the next latest things in NLP. So, the latest thing, latest in the sense latest from 2013 or 2014, right, latest not latest last year this year. The latest thing is word embedding. So, here each word is represented as the vectors. The vector dimension can be 50, 100, 150, 200 or 300. In general, 300 seems to be good. It works good for many other domains. Also in education domain, there is a paper on that in 2018 EDM conference which dimension is good for educational data set. It seems to be 300. But you can fix your dimension to which dimension you want it. And the context also you want to create a word vector based on only the education data. You want to create a word vector based on the news data set or you want to create a word vectors based on Wikipedia data sets all are possible. So, what is word vector means? They give this huge data, right, the data occurred in the news article into the neural network, a deep learning neural network. And it tries to combine and get the relationship between each words based on its location and everything, relation with other words, it gives you the number. The output layer in the neural network is defines the dimension 50, 100, 300. So, if more the dimension, more the complexity, more the detailed values, less the dimension you are abstracting the words, 50 seems to be good or 100 is good. So, you can try different words. If you want to create your own word vectors with your own sentence, there is a program tools, everything available. Just you have to use that particular program by Thomas Mikhailov. I will just give the link also next slide. So, this word vector is created by you shall know a word by the company it keeps. It is basically based on the words it co-occurring with. That is the exact basic core of this. Let us see what is word vector in a very simple example. I have a two vector. So, the vector size is two, not a 300. The dimension of the vector is 2. I have a vector called pen and a pencil. So, if the vector size is 2, the dimension is only 2. Pen is 3.2, let us 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. This is 1, this is 2, this is 3. So, pen is 3.2 and 2.1. So, pen is something here. This is pen. Pen vector is from the origin, this vector is x 0 to 1. And pencil is 3.4 somewhere here and 2.13, almost same, almost same. Now, how closely pen and pencil added? Maybe pen and pencil are stationary. It is a part of a geometry box or part of a stationary, part of people use it in schools and everything. So, these words might be occurring together too much in a given content or given article. So, that is why it is also like all coming together, something like that. Now, pen and pencil are very close to each other. So, can you know also distance between pen and pencil? Can you identify distance? We did once to identify the distance between two vectors. That is how do you do that? We did that using Euclidean distance. So, this Euclidean distance actually does this. So, what it does it? So, now we have a two vectors. Let us put it, let us put this complete graph. So, this Euclidean distance between these two vectors is identified. How it identifies? If you have this origin, you know the x 1 value. The difference between x 1 tells you this particular thing. Difference between y tells you this. If you have known this value by Pythagoras theorem, you know what is the value of this particular value, distance between x, those two vectors. It is very simple. So, you can use the Euclidean vector to identify to distance between these two words. So, let us say there is a word. How closely is associated pen and pencil? So, I want to give the word called pencil. And I asked the system, can you bring up all the words related to pencil? It can be pen, eraser. It can find all the related, how it finds related word, what it does? It takes the vector, it finds the nearest vectors, nearest vectors, computes the distance between all the other vectors, finds the nearest vector, all these nearest vectors has been given. That is why exactly this distance is computed. Let us look at one tool. If you want to know more about that, please check the Thomas Mikhalos code here, code.google.com. So, you have a code for you to use it automatically. Let us look at that.  So, word embedding demo and just take the first one, the lot of demos checking. When you go there, check the English one. So, they use English, Google News, do not worry about negative, skip gram and all, do not worry if you want to know more. And it is a 300 dimension word. So, the dimension is 300. They use the Google News articles to create this statement. So, I want to use the word pencil. So, let us see if I want to word the pencil, show nearest words to this pencil and I want top n or top 1 or 2 something. So, if you give this pencils, crayon, eraser, crayons, notepad, pen, scribbling, scribbling, paintbrush, scribbles.  You can see the usefulness of this, right. So, some people are writing of works, essays, they might be using the related words. So, if you use the similarity, we are not able to find it. Now, by using this, someone might write a crayon, someone write a pencil, someone might use a pen. So, by using these words, you can able to identify the similar words and you might give a better grading or something like that. The most, more important thing here, even not just finding the equal word. It is also very important here. It is, let us see, let us see that, if you want to type some other words, type India, Delhi or any other word in academic word or technology word is type it. So, I want to find Delhi is for India. What is Paris is for? Delhi is capital of India. What is Paris capital of? You just want to show top words. France, right. How it identified? That is again simple word vector. If once you have the word vector, you can use it. I will show you how it identified. Morocco is also speaks French. So, Morocco might consider Paris, because a lot of people travel Morocco, but I am not sure why Morocco, but the right word is France. If Delhi is the capital of India, what country the Paris is capital of? It is France, right. It is very simple. Let us go and look at that how it identified. What happened here is very simple. Once you have the logic, once you have the word vector, it is very simple to do. First, what it did? It is a 300 dimension vector. It is not 2 dimension vector. It is too big. I am just not able, nobody can imagine it. So, let us see, there is a Delhi, there is something called India. There is a word called India. It is not something called India. So, there is a word India and there is a word Delhi. There are two vectors, just simple words, the 300 dimension vectors. Now, I identify the distance between these two. The distance can be say 0.9 something like very closely associated, something like that. So, now if I, so what happens is now, if I apply Paris, the relationship between Delhi and India, this relation this 0.9 tells you whether it is a capital, whether it is a very enemy or this is a another country or something like that. This number tells you that. What I have to do? I have to identify the vector Paris plus the distance between Delhi and if I apply the distance that is a 0.9, the next word will be France. The idea here is if I have another somewhere not near Delhi and India, another two vectors Paris and France, the relationship between these two will be same as Delhi and India. That is it. So, check this particular tool and explore it. This is the latest, let us say since last 78 years. In NLP, this has changed after 2014, everything we looked at NLP as a bag of words, all these words considered all are gone. Now, it is only vectors. No, instead of million vectors, no need of million features. Just we need a few features from the 300 words. You have to combine add, average. You can compare two words. You can compare two sentences if you think of how to do it. So, this is the latest in NLP. I just wanted to inform you the one tool of NLP, also the latest in NLP in this video. So, that is all about word vectors and NLP tools. Thank you.