Everybody forced here hoping twenty one twenty two flawless basketball hobby one box number thirty four left side serial numbers Let's random and then we'll rip. Good luck everybody names and numbers the same amount of times We'll put him side by side to see who's got which number I'll win that five times Probably trade him right or we trade him shady. He's definitely more than that, but that's what it feels like Almost through a bad pick Five times here names one Two three four five Bradley are down to Chang s numbers one two three four five 21 down to 19 Bradley are 21 Qing L six Oriole with 12 Bradley are 10 16 11 Daniel L 24 Bradley are 14 Jason H one Bradley are four eight twenty two seven thirteen and fifteen Dale C with 17 Bradley are three and 23 Peter M 18 Harper with 25 and nine Remberts with two Bradley with 20 and five and Shang As with 19 I'll call it the hits as we go along here comes the link to the results if you ever want to check them out late sports cards comm bottom of the Of the home page so we can find those and the search bar works as well Very handy tool that search bar. Oh, that's got the the classic five points the NFL That's gonna make this a game. Oh horse collar tackle. Oh boy. Oh boy jets are cooking. Don't let don't let Zach Wilson cook See Enrique. Oh, yeah What a story would be of Zach Wilson. He has two wins. They're against the bills and she What a story that would be Offensive, oh offensive face mask, right? Oh, no, they call it. Is it offsetting?  Yeah, that's a bad that should be like a Like a personal foul on both of them and just like replay the down or something He's about to cook the sheeps right here. Oh That would have been I know I know you just missed them one of 15 on the siacum Nameplate one spot that is Jason H. There you go in the one spot God Greg Brown the third the horizontal Patrick Iotto number to nine out of ten the nine spot That's going to Harper good looking card that one with the gold foil Derek Fisher 12 of 15 on the distinguished autograph He's got a crazy signature 12 spots. Where is the 12 spot? Oriole Oriole to 12 spot Julius Randall, that's a Lakers Julius Randall 13 to 15 draft gem signatures 13 spots Bradley That's Randall. That's a good one next up five of five on the Letterpatch auto RJ Barrett great-looking card there five spots Bradley are Excellence autograph rookie Cameron Thomas four of five on the emeralds nice Cameron Thomas four spot Bradley are Just have a pretty decent signature Cameron Thomas Next up is Shay Gildes Alexander draft gem signatures five of ten SGA.  That's pretty sick actually That's fire. That's one of the better 25 five hits. I think I've ever seen in the serial number break That's disgusting such an awesome CP 3 Diamond gem at 10 of 20 is clay Thompson Diamond gem 10 spot Bradley are and last hit of fall us basketball tonight 10th anniversary rookie signature Jalen green 11 of 15 Bradley with that 11 spots gorgeous Ruby foil color match as always That is sick. That is a good overall case. I would say between the last break in this one good case Pretty solid. Thanks again, everybody on the football


The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security, and Rural Development, Honourable Alfred Prosper, is optimistic about the future of St. Lucia's life successor. This comes on the heels of a recent visit by the Minister to the Voli Agricultural Station. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to visit Voli, and to really get an understanding, familiarize myself as the new Minister in terms of what's happening. Based on what I saw, I can tell that the livestock farmers, there are lots of good things in place for them, because it's all about creating a commercial livestock enterprise in St. Lucia. We know that we are importing high quantities of meat, especially pork and chicken in some cases. And it is my view that the livestock station at Voli will help tremendously in helping St. Lucia reduce on imports such as meat and especially pork and so on. 100 acres of land at Voli is allocated to the production of livestock such as piglets that will be made available for purchase by farmers. The farmers will then get to rent and sell the livestock to St. Lucia's meat processing facility. Honourable Prosper addressing concerns about the meat processing facility says the Ministry of Agriculture is actively working on the facilities relocation. The Ministry did identify a new area in Mabio Valley where the meat processing facility will be located. I think this process processing facility, if it is constructed, it will tie in well with the whole wallet, livestock production and the meat processing facility. That is my view now as the new Minister that it would be best if the meat processing facility would be located within the wallet site. The Agriculture Minister is confident St. Lucia will see a growing livestock industry in the coming years.


So I just made a video where I was dropping increasingly heavier objects onto my toe to like illustrate the point that I can't feel things anymore, but I kind of proved myself wrong in the process. As you can tell, this is not a real leg. This is not a real foot. There were no nerve endings here. I cannot actually feel it. And yet I kind of still can. If my eyes see something about to happen to my foot or ankle, I still kind of feel it. Like my body predicts the experience of pain or itching or whatever it is that it's supposed to feel. Because of the way that phantom sensation works, I sometimes still feel the thing even though it doesn't actually happen.  Like when it impacts my foot, I feel the way impacting my toes, even though they don't exist anymore. On that side anyways.


Look, Netflix is not the only organization who has suffered a bit of a script leak of late because embarrassingly enough my script for the subscribe joke for this video was also leaked on the internet. I mean, it was leaked by me to be fair, but that's still technically a leak, right?  So yeah, spoiler warning, but the basic gist of it is that you should subscribe to the Grand Line Review for regular One Piece content uploaded straight into your YouTube feed. Hello and welcome to the Grand Line Review, your source for everything One Piece. And today we have a strange video for this channel that has to do with the live action Netflix adaptation of One Piece because allegedly the script for the first episode has been leaked online. Now I do need to say the very super standard stuff like be very wary about the legitimacy of stuff like this. I mean, there's a whole subculture of internet focused on making fake leaks. But what I will say is that if this was generated by a fan, then it's a pretty damn fine job. At the same time, there's also precedent for production offices to be leaking their own scripts as marketing stunts to generate some sort of hype, which you know almost certainly happened with Star Wars episode nine when an actor allegedly just left their script under the bed in a hotel, which, yeah, look, that's not a thing that happens. So this could very easily be the real deal. And while I am not going to distribute or show said script, I am going to be going through the scenes here today and just giving my general thoughts and impressions. So I guess you could consider this maybe a potential spoiler warning if you're not keen on risking spoilers for the live action project. But for everyone else, there are some super interesting decisions that you will not see coming that were made for this first episode. And quite honestly, it gives me a lot of hope that maybe just maybe they could seriously pull this off. Let's begin though, when the first scene does replicate the series in that it is Roger's execution in Log Town. However, we've already got a ton of interesting stuff to go through because guess who the very first named character in the script is. And if you said Roger, you are wrong. If you said Luffy, you're also wrong. And if you said Shanks, then you are very wrong. The first named character to appear is indeed Smoker, a young Smoker who is making his way through the crowd to see Roger kind of like that anime Phyllis seen during the Log Town arc, which I really like actually. I love the idea that from the get go, we are taking every muscle of an opportunity to build this world and its characters, which continues pretty fast and furiously because this scene also has an appearance by then fleet Admiral Kong as well as Admiral Sengoku. And they have a brief discussion about Garp and Roger. And actually Kong gives this whole speech on the execution platform, which sounds pretty epic. And then a man in the crowd does his thing by asking where Roger left his treasure. And then Roger says his last immortal words, but they are cut off right at the end by Kong ordering his execution. And then the scene ends with a brief voiceover by Shanks, describing the beginning of the great age of piracy, although he doesn't refer to it as such, not yet anyway. And then we cut to Fuchsia Village or Windmill Village in the script, where Shanks is telling the story to a young Monkey D. Luffy in Machino's Bar. And here things play out more or less similarly to manga and anime events. There's some shenanigans with the red hair pirates, we're briefly introduced to all of their major members being Lucky Rue, Yausopp and Ben Beckman. And then Luffy eventually discovers a devil fruit in some sneaky circumstances. Igama enters, makes a big fuss. And once again, this is all very according to source material here. And Luffy becomes somewhat disillusioned with Shanks after the altercation. And then they discover that Luffy is now a rubber boy after eating the devil fruit during the Igama situation. The description of the stretching powers are quite simple. It literally says Shanks lets go of Luffy's arm and snap, which is the exact effect I'm looking for. Making Luffy's devil fruit abilities look, feel and sound good is going to be paramount to this adaptation. And snap is a pretty perfect word to describe my ideal effect here because when Luffy stretches it needs to feel fast and powerful. And in live action, that is going to be difficult to achieve but it sounds like they're going to give it a solid go. So as one would expect, they also refer to it as the gum gum fruit. So it looks like we'll be using the English translation for all devil fruits in the series, which yeah, it was expected. But then again, there was always the chance of using the Japanese names to make things a bit more like a world of its own. Also, I forgot to mention this actually, but the script does make a point of saying that all names are handled in the Japanese methodology. So we go last name, then first name. So it's not like Roger Gold or Luffy Demon, he for example. So we're very thankfully sticking to the Japanese standard there. And very notably, they skip the scene where Luffy stabs himself under the eye and gets his trademark scar. He just appears with a bandage under his eye and in the next scene, you see the scar. And once again, that's also not unexpected. I don't know if there's any situation in Western culture where it would be easy to get away with showing a child stabbing themselves. I mean, even in the original Toei anime, they cut that out, although they did put it into the episode of Luffy special. I don't think it's a huge deal, though I've never been too bothered by the anime leaving that out. I mean, yes, I prefer it because it's our first indicator of Luffy's sheer determination, but it is what it is. It's not series breaking. Next up, we are cutting to Makano's bar a couple of weeks later and Garp gets mentioned again, but not by name. Whoopsap just says something along the lines of having promised Luffy's grandfather that he would watch over the boy and also he's reading the World Economic Times, which is specifically mentioned in the script rather than just a plain old newspaper. And in fact, in the original, I don't think that Whoopsap was even reading a newspaper. So this was another nice touch of world building. Anyway, Higumo then does what Higumo does and interrupts this peaceful situation which results in a surprisingly brutal situation where Luffy is beaten up and even Makano gets a backhand to the face. And I'm kind of surprised that they've chosen to show Higumo beating Luffy so voraciously, I'll say. Even though, yeah, it was obviously in the original, but there is a big difference in seeing a cartoon being beaten versus a real life child, particularly in the Western realm. So I feel like one piece is probably going to seem maybe a shade darker in this incarnation and there's other evidence to support that further on. So then Shanks arrives and we get another piece of brutality with Lucky Roo shooting a very unfortunate bandit in the head, which once again is going to look far more violent in real life than on page, but the rest goes as we know and Higumo escapes with Luffy and out pops the Lord of the Coast and I am so glad to see him in the script because making a giant eel-like creature for live action television is no easy task. It's expensive and usually of questionable quality because let's be real, even Game of Thrones had its moments of really poor CGI realization. And that series was like the epitome of having money to spend. Still, things happen more or less as we remember. Shanks saves Luffy and in the script, it refers to Shanks staring down the Lord of the Coast with quote, some sort of power. So yeah, they obviously aren't looking far enough into the future to blatantly call it Harky in the script, which is fine. At this point, it's just supposed to be a mysterious force anyway. This scene ends very intriguing though. Obviously we do the wide shot of Shanks' missing arm, but then Shanks has a voice over segment saying stuff like, I'm sorry Luffy, I couldn't protect you from the cruelty of the sea forever, but I wanted to shield you from it for as long as possible. Which is, yeah, I'm not a fan of that at all. Reading it just sounds kind of cringe and I don't know why it's necessary. Like I understand that Shanks is seemingly being set up as a voice over narrator type of character, which happened in the execution scene. And actually, you know what with that in mind, they may actually be planning to make Shanks the overall series narrator, which yeah, I hadn't considered. I mean, I guess the narration does need a voice and a familiar character is probably better than some unknown voice, but this particular situation just doesn't sit quite right with me. Anyway, this continues with Shanks' voicing profound things about protecting stuff and you see him carry Luffy into the bar where Shanks delivers him to Markino and then we cut 10 years forward in time, which is now referred to as the present day, which is indeed interesting because as we all know, this scene is not over. Shanks still needs to leave the village and his hat to Luffy, but we have something quite unexpected now, very, very unexpected because in the present day, we find ourselves on a mountaintop shrine and we are visually introduced to one Roano Azora who is approached by a member of Baroque Works. And I really like this because it's something that we know that happened and it does feel like a great thing to introduce here, especially to build up the Baroque Works organization from the very inception of the series, which will most certainly lead to a nice payoff during an eventual alabaster. But this agent is Mr. Seven, who is very notably not the same Mr. Seven who appeared on alabaster. This was the original Mr. Seven who was killed trying to recruit Zoro and this is the only picture that Oda has ever drawn of him and his description in the script is quite similar, sort of. Mr. Seven is described as a tall man with a long black coat and a mohawk of red spikes. So look, it's actually a fairly faithful representation on paper at least. But Mr. Seven then invites Zoro to join Baroque Works and then a fight starts in which a silhouette of Mr. Seven being sliced in half with the top half of his body sliding clean off. Further adding fuel to the idea that although this is a silhouette, one piece might be just a little bit darker than we're used to. And I guess I'm kind of conflicted on this scene overall though because I really love how Zoro is introduced in the series tied up on the cross. But at the same time in terms of instantly hooking people on a character, this is a decent introduction for Zoro. It is a big change though and one that we'll see some ripple effects of later on. But first of all, we now move to a trading vessel which has been attacked and we meet Alveda who is described as being a woman of immense stature, tall and wide and oozing power. And this is an interesting description because one of the big questions with Netflix is how they are going to handle larger characters because in the one piece world even restricting our knowledge to basic humans, we have people of all shapes and sizes and my worst fear is that Alveda and characters like Alveda are just going to be bulky, forgettable people. At the very least so it looks like they're trying to replicate Alveda's size in the script although how they plan to realize that is a completely different question. Next up though, we have a scene at Alveda's base on Goat Island, which is not to be confused with the brief filler arc that also took place at a location known as Goat Island. It's a weird one piece thing, let's not worry about it. But the most interesting thing about this scene though is that Don Krieg's name is mentioned. Quite specifically, Alveda and Hippoko discuss a tribute to Don Krieg, which noise Alveda but it looks like they are setting Krieg up to be a proper presence in this incarnation rather than just some guy who shows up at Baratie and I do really like this sort of stuff. I think it's a nice thing to layer in names here and there of characters that we eventually meet but for now we are also introduced to Kobe and very importantly, we have the ever iconic Luffy popping out of a barrel moment which I love that they are trying to keep in. What I don't like though is that there is a strong hint of four kids in the air about this scene because Luffy doesn't hilariously berate Kobe like in the anime in the manga. Instead, he just joyfully takes to Kobe and plays along saying stuff like, nice to meet ya and it feels a bit there. Anyway, Alveda makes it faster than both of them move to escape, much like we know. But then we cut to a marketplace in Shellstown with Marines doing a bit of a chit chat and they name drop a couple of familiar figures who are apparently causing trouble and once again, Don Krieg comes up but afterwards they also name drop Arlong and Captain Kuro is mentioned as well in regards to Morgan, their superior officer so a lot of names floating around here by some miscellaneous Marines, which once again, I love. And then Zora stumbles along, apparently literally carrying the body of Mr. Seven in a bag because he's trying to cash in a reward as a bounty hunter, which is pretty grim stuff actually. In the script, they even unzip the bag and we see the Marines reactions and it's not pretty. Then we cut back to Goat Island. Luffy and Kobe reveal their dreams, much like we know and Alveda finds them. An altercation begins and Luffy wins very similarly to how things happened in the manga, I guess less so in the anime. And after that action scene, we are back in Shellstown, a tavern in Shellstown to be precise and we actually see the whole Helmepo situation play out in real time rather than a flashback and it ends in Zoro accepting Helmepo's conditions. Although something I do love is that the description of Helmepo literally refers to him as an overcompensating douchebag, which you know, accurate, I guess. The key takeaway here though is I think that Zoro is being portrayed as a much more vicious presence. In the script, he throws a mug at Helmepo's head, slices down two of his Marines and then directly threatens Helmepo. The latter of which, yes, he did do in the anime events. The manga is much more vague about what actually happened, but there is this overwhelming vibe at play here that Zoro is not a person to be trifled with. Like I can imagine him being quite a terrifying presence. And there's also no dog in this scene. You might remember in the anime in the manga that Helmepo had a wild dog going crazy in the tavern, but in this scene, he's just being a prick, walking in and kicking a couple off their table. Then there's a short scene with Luffy and Kobe sailing and Luffy is a very, let's say, encouraging person here because he actually says that he wants to see Kobe walk into a Marine office and enlist. Like he's pretty directly pushing Kobe to realize his dream, which I'm kind of conflicted about, because Luffy is coming off as a very righteous individual overall in the script. A very almost entirely pure existence, as opposed to what I loved about him in early one piece in that he was actually quite selfish and would always end up doing the right thing with more as a side note. And this scene also has, by far, my least favorite line of dialogue, because Kobe asks Luffy if a Marine and a pirate can be friends. And apparently Luffy says, I don't care who you are, as long as who you are is a good guy. Which, no, just, no, I'm not on board with that at all. It's a very for kids thing to say and I think it's really out of character for Luffy. I feel like his answer would have been something much less cringy, more simple and not as ham fistedly profound.  It's obviously not what it would be, but I think it's closer. And then they talk about Zora for a bit and there's some more bad Luffy dialogue here. I won't go into it because, but this leads us into a transition into a flashback of Shanks leaving Dawn Island. And there's actually something interesting here regarding Markino. In the script, it says that she giggles and if it wasn't clear that she was spitting with Shanks, it certainly is now. So they're definitely playing up that relationship far more than the manga or anime ever did. Also, there is a big, big change here because in saying goodbye to Luffy, Shanks actually invites Luffy to join his crew and go out to see with them. And at first I wasn't sure about this, but I actually kind of like it, having thought about it a bit more because Luffy simply says no. And then he claims that he will become a captain of his own and even become the pirate king, which does give Luffy a nice sense of determination. The fact that he so easily could have become a pirate right here and now, but he has his sights set on bigger goals. And then Shanks gives him the straw hat in that ever iconic moment and we skip forward in time. Once again, to Luffy leaving Dawn Island, punching the Lord of the Coast right into his base thing and once again proudly declaring that he will become the king of the pirates. Fairly standard, much as we know. And then the very final scene of this episode takes place in Charlestown with Zoro on the crucifix saying not today, over and over and over. And then smash cut to a one piece title card and that is the end of episode one. And look, I don't actually think it's too bad. There are a lot of pieces of dialogue that do seem kind of cringy and I'm not a massive fan of the direction that they're taking Luffy in, but otherwise this is actually far better than anything that I was anticipating. I do quite enjoy how they are incorporating much grander and detailed elements of the world into the series at this early of a stage. And if this adaptation is a success, then that will only serve to reinforce later episodes and in fact, entirely to seasons. And even with some of the cringy dialogue, you do have to remember that an actor could very well perform it far better than we could read it. Or at the very least, I could read it. You know, the words aren't everything and there's a huge mountain of layers to be plonked on top of this script if indeed it is real. But at the moment, look, this is fine. I would be quite happy to see this as the first episode of live action one piece. So in the case that it is real, this is the first hurdle cleared. There's an awful lot more though from every other area like direction, production design, cinematography, acting, editing, special effects, and many, many more. But hey, I cannot complain with a solid foundation to build all of those things on top of. But what do you guys think? Please do leave your thoughts in the comments below or even join my Discord server. And if you'd like to see more videos like this, then please do go and check out some of my other content or even subscribe to the channel for more glorious one piece business uploaded straight into your YouTube feeds. But for now, this has been the ground line review and I'll see you next time.


The the web system allows faculty members to change grades. So before we do the attack I'll just show you how I can log in I can log in as Steve and You've seen you know my password you stole it from the previous attack and I can view the grades of some student For example this student with ITS 335 as an a if I select that student I can change the grade Okay, so this is the normal feature of the website. It allows the admin or the faculty member to change grades Let's give them an F So select the student that you want to look at you may type in the course code If you click on their ID so currently they have a B plus I may change the grade to say an F So I've done it for both students or a D in this case So that's the normal feature the the faculty member can change grades Students should not be able to change grades and if you do it normally as a student you'll find you cannot change the grades We'll not test that but what we'd like as a student is to Get the grades change without being logged in as a faculty member Can the student change the grades and we'll do what's called a cross-site request forgery attack to do so Let's just view the grades Just to check confirm. So this student has a B for CSS 322 C for ITS 3332 3 and an F for the other one. Let's give them an F for everything They're not so good Okay, so that student has F's for all courses Now I'm currently logged in as the the faculty user Steve Someone sells me while I'm logged in and marking students Someone sends me an email with a link to another website which offers some interesting things some free stuff I don't have the email, but they told me the URL I'll open it up is free stuff Com free stuff Someone sent a link to this and I like free stuff. So I visit the website Okay, it offers free stuff. So let's say this is a website that has many different Things that are interesting to me. So I visited that fine Now I better go back to marking. I Need to finish grading. So I go back to grading and just check and view the grades Mr. Four there What's happened student This student now has an a for ITS 335 So this is what we call a cross-site request forgery and it in Involves Several aspects it involved while I was logged in to the the normal website. I Visited another website free stuff. For example, the malicious user tricked me into visiting this website They they sent me an email or tell me a link to this website Which offers things for free or something that I'm interested in and I go there While I'm also logged in in another tab into the my uni website Now let's look at this free stuff website Let's look at the source code If you look at the source code, it actually contains an image in there, but the size of the image is zero So there's an image, but it's it's not viewable that's to hide it from the normal user and That image the way that the images work with your web browser is that when there's a link to an image your web browser Will automatically download it it clicks on this link Look at the link it goes to the real my uni website and it Executes or it visits the URL that updates the grade For that user for the course ITS 335 it sets the new grade to a That is the normal way to update a grade by this URL but it only works if you're logged in as the user Steve if a Student who's logged in as their their normal user tries to visit visit this URL. It will not work But my web browser is currently logged in as Steve on the other tab and the cookie That identifies me is still sent and the cookie when my web browser visits this image it sends the cookie for the domain www.myuni.edu and the My uni website Receives the cookie from user Steve Therefore it executes the update of grade and it changes the user's grade to an A without me knowing Right, I know now because I see it in the grades, but in what can happen here is now that okay a student Who cannot log in and change their grade if they can trick me to visit a website which has a link to the URL that does change the grade while I'm currently logged in then they can get the grade change it in this case So involved this fake website, which was node 5 in our case Set up with a hidden link to change the grade and it worked in that case In this case the hidden link was in a zero-sized image There are other ways to do that as well. It's called a cross site request for dre There's a request sent to a different site so the cross sites and the request really is a request to the my uni site and It has the correct domain so that the cookie which logs me in is attached in that request So this is another attack which is quite prominent and if we return to our Lecture slides wherever it is Where does it fit CSRF Cross site request for dre in number eight here it involves that you're logged in as the the normal application the normal website and Another website the attacker has another website with a link to the normal one hidden from the user And they get the the victim to visit that site while logged in So it requires me to log in at this be logged in at the same time but visit a different website and That if it's not implemented correctly it allows the attacker to execute something that they couldn't There are ways to prevent that In every request make sure that there's some token included that is is unique and unpredictable So that the attacker cannot create such a link that will work the web server will check the link And make sure that the information is not in the URL But is in a post request so you can implement your browser your application to avoid such attacks But some people will not


Hundreds marched through the streets of Bemidji to show unity after the deadly protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. As Mel Maya reports, many people in the crowd wanted others to know that racism will not be tolerated here in northern Minnesota. The crowd quickly grew near the Green Mill restaurant, as more gathered for a peaceful march to the Paul and Babe statues. They're grabbing signs right away, they're grabbing the banners, and they're ready to stand strong against white supremacy in Bemidji. On Saturday, one woman was killed and many were injured when white supremacists violently clashed with counter protesters over the removal of a confederate statue. Paul Kivi disagreed with President Trump's remarks following the violence.  When Alicia Luscher and her friend Brock Altizer heard about the event, they immediately jumped into action. My grandpa went to war to fight those people, so it's like, that's kind of why I'm here is because I have a strong feel for this. Kay Jackson wanted to participate in the march because she has been repeatedly subjected to racist remarks. She says that a little boy called her darky at the Beltrami County Fair over the weekend. Having that happen again in this day and age, my young little kid like that just killed me. Even though Jackson says she felt it wasn't the place to confront the issue, other allies are getting ready to step up to the plate. When something happens in a grocery store and you see some racism, you need to talk about it. By confronting the issue head-on, many in the crowd are hoping to create a more tolerant and welcoming community for all. In Bemidji, I'm Mel Meyer, Lakeland News.  The march will start at 6 o'clock at the Gregory Park band shell. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Guido opened with some jokes. I'm not going to have any jokes, but I'll open with a little lighthearted humor. This is my iPhone's ringtone, my default ringtone. My wife really loves that. Restaurants. Okay, my topic is my title is selling does not imply ownership owning and vice versa a dissection. So I want to explore two related beliefs which I think are fallacious and they stem from confusions about core libertarian principles and confusions introduced by the sloppy use of language and overuse of metaphorical thinking. And by the way, I did touch on this topic in less detail at the PFS here in 2011 when I talked about a bunch of libertarian misconceptions and also in libertarian controversies lecture from Mises Academy about ten years ago. So the first one. Ownership implies selling. Walter Block uses this a lot. In fact, I heard him say it last week again in Nashville at the Libertarian Scholars Conference. So the idea is this. If you own yourself or your body, you should be able to sell it. So voluntary slavery contracts should be enforceable. And if the legal system does not permit voluntary slavery, then it means you really don't own yourself. Right? So the implicit assumption there is that one aspect of ownership is the right or ability to sell. Fallacy two. Selling implies ownership. So some contracts that we're used to are exchanges of own things like a simple one like an apple for an orange, 10 chickens for a pig, one ounce of gold for a horse or $3 for a cup of coffee. Now we also have labor contracts where it's considered to be a sale of a service which implies that you own your labor because you sold it. And also is the sale of knowledge, information or know how like teachers who get paid to give information, publish your speakers. And this argument is also used to argue for intellectual property. People say, well, if you can sell your ideas, you must have owned it. So intellectual property is a legitimate concept. Similarly with Bitcoin, the idea is that Bitcoin can be possessed and sold. So it's also said to be owned by the proponents of Bitcoin, of which I'm one. Now, let's revisit some elementary categories of libertarian thought. So first of all, action is what when humans in the world employ means or scarce resources as tools to help achieve their ends or goals. And when there's society, there's a possibility of conflict. Now it's good that we live in society because we have the division of labor, trade and intercourse with other people. But there can also be conflict among actors or humans in the use of these scarce resources, including our bodies because of the nature of these resources. So what this means is the scarce resources which we employ as human actors in a purely economic sense are precisely things over which there can be conflicts. So sometimes to avoid confusion in recent years, I will refer to these things as contestable or conflictable resources. They're the types of things over which there can be conflict. Because quite often intellectual property proponent will say something like, well, I don't know about you, but good ideas is pretty scarce. So they can't say good ideas are conflictable, though. Now in civilized society, property or ownership rights are assigned to reduce this conflict. So what are property rights? All rights are human rights and all human rights just are property rights because the very purpose of property rights is to avoid conflict over scarce resources. So ownership means property rights. So to own a thing is to have a property right in the thing. So it's actually better to refer to property as the relationship between a person and a thing, although over time we sometimes are careless with language and we will refer to the thing itself as property. Like we'll say that car is my property. But precise language would be I have a property right in that thing, in that car, or I own that car. So ownership and property rights. A property right in a thing gives the owner the right to use it. This is what property rights are. Now to be more precise, which is this procedure is not necessary for today's discussion, but owning a thing actually does not give you the right to use it, but it gives you the right to prevent others from using it. It's an exclusionary right. As a practical matter, that usually gives you the ability to use the thing. So for example, if you own a gun, that means you can prevent anyone else from using the gun. But it doesn't mean you have the unlimited right to use the gun because other people have property rights, and their property rights prescribe your actions. So I can't use the gun to shoot someone. Now most people make the mistake of saying, well, this shows that property rights are limited. But this is actually not not correct. The reason I can't shoot the gun in my neighbor is because he has a property right in his own body. And it's a limitation on what actions I can perform. It's not a limitation on my property rights in my gun. In fact, if I was if I had a stolen gun, which I didn't own, I still couldn't shoot my neighbor. So the ownership of the gun is not limited by property rights. This mistake is used also to argue for intellectual property because people will say, I'll point out that intellectual property rights restrict other property rights. So they're actually an infringement of property rights because they're they're effectively an unconsented negative servitude. Because if I have a patent, I can prevent you from using your factory to make iPhones. So that's a limitation on your use of your property. And the response will be, well, all property rights limit other people's property rights. But that's not true. Property rights limit only actions. And the owner of a factory making iPhones is not committing any action that invades the borders of anyone else's property. So that's why that's that's another fallacy. It's a related fallacy, but not the one I'm addressing directly today. So libertarianism property rights. So the purpose of property rights is to permit conflicts over the use of scarce resources to be avoided. So they slime these exclusive rights so that others can avoid the conflict. So how does this work? The property rights are assigned in accordance with whoever, which whoever actor has the best link or connection to the resource. This is the only way you could have a workable system of property rights, because any system of property rights has to be voluntarily respected. And for it to be voluntarily respected, it has to be seen as objectively fair, which means it can't be based upon arbitrary differences like I have the right to you and you don't have the right to me because I'm me and you're you. That's a particularistic rule. Or I have the right to your land because I'm stronger. Those types of arguments and justifications are reasons are not justifications. There has to be an objective best link. So how does that work out? In Western private law and in libertarianism, which is a far more consistent working out of this, there are basically two types of links. The type of link applied to your body, which is a unique scarce resource, and the type of link applied to external resources in the world, which were previously unowned. So for the body, the link is a self ownership link. You own your body and the reason is because of your direct control over it, which I'll get to in a minute. And then for scarce resources in the world, they're always owned first by someone first using them from their own state. That's called homesteading or original appropriation. And then ownership can be transferred for two reasons. Contractually, that's a voluntary transfer of title of the resource to someone else of your ownership title, either by sale or by gift or rectification, which can be seen as a subset of contract because it's also a transfer of title from an owner to someone. But it's because the owner committed a harm, like a tort against the victim and gave him a right to recover some of the aggressor's property. So homesteading contract and rectification are the basically the only three principles. So these four principles are how we determine the best link. And this the core of all property rights in every socialist system and every law that deviates from this, they always end up deviating deviating from this in one way or the other, including intellectual property. Now, so we commonly say self ownership. This is another phrase that can be misleading because you can have people object to it and say, well, how can you own yourself because that's a religious view because it implies that yourself is different than your body or something like that. And they'll criticize it that way. So to be precise, self ownership is just a shorthand for body ownership because your body is a scarce resource. Your self is not a scarce resource. Self is bound up with the concept of personality and the person that you are, your identity as a person in the world, as an actor, as an agent. So every person is the presumptive owner of his body. This is the basic libertarian rule. Now I say presumptive because it's not absolute. The right can be lost by committing aggression because the victim has the right to defend himself during a crime or to retaliate after. And when they do that they are using the body of the aggressor without his consent. So he's in a sense lost ownership of his body to the extent that the victim needs to be able to use force against the aggressor. So the basis here is not homesteading but it's the direct control over your body. This is the best link between a given actor and the resource of his human body. And actually I think the first person who is explicit in explicitly recognizing this was Professor Hoppe in a German publication in 1985. You actually weren't explicit about this in your in your later English book but it's implicit in there. And if you remember I found you told me about that passage and you translated it for me for my article. And so Hoppe's argument is that you own your body because you directly control it. So each this gives each person or actor logical temporal priority or precedence as compared to any anyone's indirect control. What that means is if you were to enslave someone or claim to own their body the only way to control that body is by coercion by directing threats of force to get them to act the way you want them to act. But in that case they're the ones still directly controlling it and that always has precedence and it's a better link than the indirect control I can exert over you by coercion. Not to mention that the coercer himself would be in contradiction because he claims ownership of his body for the purpose of being the one who can punish you or threaten you. So this is what the best link means here. It's not homesteading although people think it's homesteading. It can't be homesteading because to homestead means you're an actor in the world and you find an unknown resource and you appropriate it to yourself. But this presupposes there's already a person with a body. So it's impossible to imagine that you homestead your your body unless you have some some religious view where the soul is goes down there and grabs it but that's not the domain of science as I think Guido and Mises would agree. We could make an analogy. We could say that when a child wakes up at the right moment when he becomes sapient enough to be said to have rights he homesteads himself but it's really it's really a loose analogy. It just means that's the point in time in which he's a person with rights. It's not like his body was unowned and he just homesteaded it. Now for external resources these are things that are previously unowned. This is a key point and they're external to the human body so they're not part of people's bodies. So in this case as I said earlier the best link is determined by the three principles. First we have original appropriation or homesteading. What this means is you possess something which is an economic category. It means to be able to use or manipulate. Mises I'll get to this later but Mises calls it sociological I'm sorry calls it catalactic or sociological ownership but what he really means is possession. So mere possession like Crusoe on an island he can never own anything because there's no society to have norms with respect to. He controls and he uses things he possesses these things as means but he doesn't own them. In society you can also do the same thing you can just possess something and not intend to own it and you pick up a stick and throw it away or you can possess it with the intent to own and you take certain steps to transform it or to put a berry up around it or to as Hoppe calls it in border it which basically means to put up a visible public link between you and the thing demonstrating to everyone this thing is no longer unowned I'm owning it. So this requires the merger of the combination of actual possession or transformation or in bordering with the intent to own. So those two things are essential to owning a thing that was previously unowned and then once you own a thing you can contractually transfer it to someone by your intent and I'll get to the mechanics of that in a moment and then again rectification if you have to transfer something to someone to compensate them for damages you caused them. Okay. Oh and by the way this formulation of rights that I just went through this way of looking at the best link and the breakdown between the body I'm happy that I was able to help the Mises caucus in the US get the this basic formulation put into the Libertarian Party platform last May and the Reno reset we call it. I won't read it here but it's basically exactly how I put it and the reason was there was no definition of aggression in the Libertarian Party platform it was just implied getting back to the problem of confusing selling and ownership thinking there's a necessary relation between them how do we sell it an external resource that we own like the contractual title transfer we talked about early. So when you own a resource because the ownership requires the merger of possession and the intent to own you can lose it by losing the intent to own by making it clear I no longer intend to own this it's called abandonment. So if you acquire a thing you can unacquire it and because of this ability it gives you the right to sell because you can basically abandon it in favor of someone else. Imagine you're on a tree and you have an apple and there's people walking you can kind of toss the apple to whoever you want you can direct this you can direct the rehomesthetic in a fence in effect. You know so if I have an apple I can and I give it to you to hold temporarily you're the possessor but you're not the owner but I'm the owner but I'm not the possessor so ownership and possession is distinct but if you're holding my apple and I abandon it now you're holding an unowned apple and you can just re-homestead it right away so that's how the mechanics the juristic or legal mechanics of why and how you can sell things. So the way that we come to own unowned resources is the reason why they can be sold so it's not an incident it's not an aspect of ownership per se it's an aspect of the way external things come to be owned. Now what about selling yourself like Walter Block thinks we can do so external things can be sold because they were previously unowned or acquired by an actor owner who is already a self-owner and they can abandon it but your body rights don't arise by homesteading or by your intent to own yourself they arise because of the best link based upon your direct control so if you try to make a contract I promise to sell or I promise to be your slave forever those words do not change the fact that I still have the best link to my body and because my words are not an act of aggression which is the only way to come to own someone else's body if they commit an act of aggression then promising to be someone's slave is simply not enforceable because they doesn't transfer any title to anything you still own your body you can always change your mind in other words. So Rothbard seems to notice this in his kind of convoluted arguments about this in his contract theory but he it's implied and I think Hans later clarified it maybe unknowingly but so Rothbard wrote it is true that man being what he is cannot absolutely guarantee lifelong service to another under voluntary arrangement thus Jackson at present might agree to labor under Crusoe's direction for life and return for food and clothing but he cannot guarantee that he will not change his mind at a certain point in the future and decide to leave in this sense a man's own person and will is inalienable and cannot be given up for someone else for any future period so I think the reason he focuses on the fact that the will is inalienable is Rothbard senses that that's the reason you own your body although he never quite says it explicitly but he gets really close I mean it was the what's the relevance of the fact that your will is inalienable to the fact that a voluntary slavery contract is the the only relevance could be that your direct control or your will is the reason you own your body okay so again after you promised to be a slave you still have direct controls you're still the owner and you have not committed aggression so you can always change your mind okay now what about the other fallacy owning what you sell okay in a simple exchange for two material resources that are both owned by two different people like an apple for an orange or an apple for a silver coin the sellers do own what they sell okay there are two title transfers the orange changes ownership and the apple changes ownership but in a sale of service labor or information the contract in legal terms only involves one title transfer this is in legal terms whatever is quote paid to the person performing the service so if I give you a chicken to pay you for giving me a haircut the title to the chicken transfers to you but you don't transfer title to any labor to me it's not like there's a bucket of labor which I'm handing over to you so these are actions not things that can be owned so labor or services or action or things that we do with things that we own like our bodies or other owned resources they're not themselves owned resources so you don't really sell labor so why do we describe it this way now here's where I think the reason for the confusion I think the reason is we have to keep a mode similar to what Gita was mentioning earlier there are different modes of understanding for different realms of phenomena and different conceptual frameworks so for example in the tele logical versus causal realms we have human action and purpose of behavior on the one hand versus causal laws of nature on the other we have praxeology versus the empirical methods the scientific method we have apodictic or a priori versus tentative or contingent knowledge we also have normative or juristic right legal types of realms of understanding versus factual so we have human laws and norms versus empirical facts I'm getting to the point so now Mises was careful to distinguish the juristic or the legal or the should from the factual but he used the word ownership in both which is potentially confusing so he said regarded as a sociological category so he this in my in socialism 1922 he changed the word to catalactic later probably because he hadn't come up with it yet I don't know but he calls it the sociological or economic category of ownership is the power to use a good now that's possessed that's what we would call possession or control and then he says the sociological and juristic by which means legal or normative concepts of our ownership are different ownership from the sociological point of view is the having of a good it's just what Crusoe could do so that's natural or original ownership and it's a purely physical relationship of man to goods but the legal is the should have who should have it who has a right to it this is where property rights and law come in okay so and then later in human action he he goes on in a similar vein so as I said earlier it's better to distinguish ownership and possession to use those words rather than two senses of the word ownership because of me could potentially confusing because people say they own bitcoins but what they really mean is they possess the bitcoins they say they own their brain their minds but you know your mind is just an epic phenomena of your physical brain which you own your brain but you know you can change your you can change your mind but you can't change your brain they're different they're different concepts a dead body has a brain but it doesn't mind there's a well-known Roman law civil law scholar who passed away fairly a couple years ago from Greece but he was a Louisiana professor of Yiannopoulos and he you know he also defines in the civil Louisiana civil code also defines possession as actual control or the factual authority a person has over corporeal or a material thing I like I like these of these of these of phrase eologies and again calling Bitcoin possession ownership is one reason for the confused idea that it's ownable so if you say I possess a Bitcoin that's fine but it doesn't apply that you own it plus bitcoins can be sold and so people think if you sell something you must own it so that's why they make that mistake Yiannopoulos also points out something I mentioned earlier that the accurate use of the word property should be the designation of rights people have with respect to things in other words property is not the thing itself is the relationship between you and the thing I have a property right in the thing I'm the owner of the thing okay so why do we refer to a sale of labor information when I already pointed out there's only a one-way title transfer of the payment made to the labor former why do we call it that what happens is just like in the way the word ownership is used in both senses sometimes in a in to mean possession or economic ownership or juristic ownership or real ownership we use the word sale in that in that way to sometimes we use it as economists to describe the structure of a given human action and sometimes we use it as lawyers to describe the rights that are transferred okay so in the law sell refers to transferring title to an own thing so you don't literally sell your labor you just perform your labor but in in economics it can be used to describe or characterize an action so all action involves an actor using scarce means to pursue some goal or purpose so we try to describe what someone does we try to discern their goals and also the means that they're using so that's what history does as well right what you know was mentioning earlier we try to understand the axis of people so when we say as an economist a sold his labor to be this is just a concise way of explaining the practice a logical nature of that action we're saying why a perform the action his labor well he performed it to get money from be we're describing his mole his goal his goal was to get money from be that's why he engaged in the means of using his body to perform an action which he knew would satisfy be and why did be transfer owners with his money today or he could see he actually did legally sell his money today to induce him to perform an action so there's only one title transfer so in this case the economic and the juristic uses of the word sell different because in legal terms be transfers money to a conditional on performing an action there's only one title transfer the money that was transferred but in economic terms a sells his labor to be in exchange for money and be sells his money to a exchange for a's look a's action so we can use selling in an economic sense but we should be careful otherwise you might end up just buying intellectual property thank you very much


Our next presentation will be given by Joe Cornelius, the chief executive officer for Bill and Melinda Gates Agricultural Innovations, which is known as Gates Ag 1. The title of his talk is innovations to improve agriculture productivity and sustainability in the face of global climate change. From a Bill and Melinda Gates perspective, I'd like to build on what Don actually set the stage for and as an organization that often calls itself impatient optimists. There are a lot of points of intersection as we think about agriculture and what I'd like to lay out for the next 25 minutes are the challenges, many of which we've discussed over the last two days of the workshop and the opportunities going forward. Alright, so from a historical perspective, agriculture has been an enabler of forest civilization and agriculture, as we know it, is really about domesticating both crops and animals. And over the course of time, the agricultural sector has actually had numerous inflection points. In this particular case, if we look back, going back to Neolithic period, there have been at least three major agricultural revolutions that have occurred during this particular period. One thing that I think is particularly interesting about the timeline or chronology is that we seem to keep budding our heads against the same problems, whether it's population growth, climate, and ultimately it's technology that's actually been a primary driver of our ability to actually move to the next century. The key question for us where we are today is are we going to be able to actually close this gap between now and 2050 and more importantly between now and the end of the 21st century? One chart that actually is pointed to quite regularly as an achievement of the agricultural sector is the significant progress that's been made in the last 75 years and in this particular chart showing Maze in North America. There are comparable charts in Europe for other cereal grains, but I would also challenge that this is not only a success story, it's also a story that's actually been enabled by inexpensive energy, mechanization, fertilizer, and a number of other significant innovations that have actually enabled the growth, but have also created scenarios that now we as a civilization have to address and clean up. The key thing also about this chart is that yields are starting to plateau and across the board all crops are seeing this similar effect. Actually several crops are in a negative year-over-year growth. Corn, which gets the lion's share of the R&D investment from the private sector, is growing at a scant one to two percent per year. So the food security is one of the issues that we've touched on that basically we have to increase agricultural productivity by roughly doubling between now and 2050 and at the same time do that without bringing any additional land mass into planting. If we were to just use the current yield curves that were on, that would require our finding a land mass the size of North America to actually be able to satisfy that need. So basically that's not going to happen and we've got to look at agriculture stepping up to be able to close that gap in other ways besides procuring additional land. Next slide. Fresh water is also a significant challenge from an agricultural perspective. 70 percent of the blue water or the potable water that we drink actually goes to agriculture and 40 percent of the land that is being cultivated is currently under irrigation. This is a bank account that we've been drawing down over the last century and basically we have to find a better alternative to current existing farm practice. Next slide. Land use, arguably the most important single greenhouse gas challenge we have, whether it be deforestation or just the cultivation of crop land year over year, we basically have to find better farming practices that allow us to manage this in a more sustainable, sustainable fashion. Next slide. And if we look at the productivity gains that have actually procured to agriculture, it's been at a significant cost to the environment. Several of the speakers previously spoke about hypoxia as an example. Half of the fertilizer we put on the farmland ultimately ends up in fresh waterways and has deleterious effects globally that have to be reversed. And essentially all of us are going to be impacted by climate but no one more severely than those who are trying to farm in Sub-Saharan Africa. Of the 500 plus million farms around the world, disproportionately those that are in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia are being severely impacted by a number of different climatic effects, not just drought but also disease and insect pattern shifts that we're seeing on a mega-scale that are having significant implications. Next slide. And of all the sectors that exist at our disposal, agriculture is a pathway to equality for all economies. And this is a particularly important aspect as we think about well-income countries and their ability to actually move to a more sustainable economic model. Next slide. All right. So doom and gloom is over. Let's now change gears and talk about the optimistic. Agriculture is biology. And as a result, it's actually can become a significant contributor to what we're trying to solve here. Genetics are programmable, as Don alluded to in the previous presentation, that like software, we have the capability to actually improve the genetics that we are currently farming. What's said another way is we don't have to play with the deck that we have. Seeds are scalable. All the genetics that we develop actually are very specific to a specific geography. Subsequently, we can customize and deliver those improvements, genetic improvements globally. And carbon is currency to the farm or agricultural system, whether it's carbon and grain or carbon and soil. At the end of the day, it's monetized. Subsequently, it has an economic incentive that's aligned with the objectives that we're trying to achieve. Next slide. The Academy actually published a report that came out this year, and it was the workshop was conducted last year that outlined fields of opportunity from an agricultural research perspective. And these break down into a number of different buckets, such as efficiency, sustainability, and resiliency. Increasing nutrient use, reducing soil loss, mobilizing genetic diversity are very much in that high efficiency bucket. Optimizing water use, improving food and animal genetics, early and rapid detection, as well as reducing food loss. These are all low hanging fruit in the context from a research perspective that we do have tools and paths or particular strategies that can allow us to actually impact these areas. Next slide. What I'd like to talk about in the context of natural climate solutions from an agricultural innovations perspective, that there are two particular inflections that we can actually focus on in the near mid term that actually have long term consequences. One is precision breeding and the other is knowledge farming. Two very overused terms, but two that are quite important going forward. First, I'll talk about precision breeding. Breeding is very inefficient. It's basically just like photosynthesis that Don talked about, that inefficiency gets amplified by the fact it takes us another eight to 12 years, even when we find a or discover genes of interest to be able to move that into a commercial context. The process of crossing parents, conducting field evaluations, and ultimately translate into commercial hybrids and varieties is a very slow, methodic process. And what particularly slows it down is the fact that we truly need to understand the genotype by environment by management attributes as relates to crop breeding. Next slide. So on the left, a figure that most of you are probably familiar with, Norman Borlaug, who has been very, who is very much involved on the green revolution side. What I want to talk about is what Mendel started several centuries ago, and that was our understanding of breeding. And what are the variables that go into breeding that actually allow us to realize genetic gain. And in this particular context, talking about genetic gain as a phenotype of interest, and what we're looking for are the outliers in a normal distribution. This is a very simplified version of that equation. What I want to highlight in this graphic is the fact that there are several parameters that a breeder is trying to optimize in order to get to the next generation trade. Once they discover a gene, what they want to make sure is that it's heritable, that it actually can be passed down from the parent to its progeny. And it's important to understand how the phenotype in this particular case could be yield, or it could be disease tolerance, or it could be carbon partitioning, how that is influenced by genetics, by environment. And it's a function of how the breeder actually conducts their activity, how much phenotypic variability do they have in their trials, what kind of selection intensity, and what's the length of the cycle that they're running on their breeding. At the end of the day, the clock speed can be affected by our ability to either impact the numerator or the denominator in this particular equation, and actually increase the number of breeding cycles on an annual basis. Next slide. So once a breeder actually is successful in creating a new commercial hybrid or variety, then it moves into the farmer's field. Where the breeder is trying to actually increase genetic gain, the farmer is trying to optimize what the breeder hands them. And the farmer was actually battling with nature on a day-to-day basis. During the course of the year, they're making several hundred critical decisions that any one of which can determine success or failure from productivity standpoint. And certainly, most of those, if not all of those, have significant impacts on sustainability. Next slide. So a quote I came across in nature several years ago, which just resonated with me, was that science is informed by what is possible to measure, and it takes great leap forward when we measure something new. Next slide. And fortunately, we are all living in this age of convergence. And the question is, can we actually integrate these technologies, biology, genomics, engineering, data analytics, mathematics into the fourth agricultural revolution? Next slide. So Dom touched on just one aspect of this innovation frontier, which is biotechnology. We saw an explosion of activity in genomics at the turn of this century. We've also seen significant other omics breakthroughs that have occurred. And we now actually have the means to actually be able to discover genes and traits that actually impact a number of pathways, one of which is carbon fixing photosynthesis that was discussed by Dom. We've also had genes and traits that affect carbon assimilation and transport, which can actually enable us to think about ways to optimize root chute partitioning differently than we've had before. The ability to identify new genes that actually have greater recalcitrance, which have impact on soil carbon. Genes that potentially affect water use efficiency, as well as self fertilizing plants. So we have multiple strategies that we can actually address that would actually contribute toward our ability to adapt and mitigate a number of climatic factors that we're facing. And all of this, we know, has to be done in addition to being able to make the plants more abiotic and biotic stress tolerant as a result of the challenges that we're facing. The good news is that we've seen productivity in the space. This was an article that was actually published in the Wall Street Journal just several weeks ago, August 12th, the robot producing the crops of the future. This was a test bed that was developed by the Department of Energy along with USDA and NSF several years ago. And the primary objective of this was to actually create a test bed that would allow us to conduct high throughput testing of genotype by phenotype by environmental conditions. It's on a site that's approximately two hectares. It's in the desert of Arizona, so it allows us to actually phenotype on a 12-month basis. In addition to its work on developing biology discovery efforts, it also provides very high resolution data sets that can actually be innovated around. And it also provides us with the capability to bring in new sensor modalities and test those on crops as we think about developing high throughput capabilities. It also has a place in our ground truthing, our satellite network, and potentially creating a better informed algorithms that can be used in other deployment vehicles like drones and small robots. Next slide. Just a short video. I don't know if you can click that to start. So this is showing the the scandalizer that's used in the field. It weighs approximately, I'm not sure if it was 20 tons or 30 tons, but it essentially has every sensor that we currently are that's known to civilization and provides us with an opportunity to be able to identify sensors and down select so that we can then then take those sensors and use them in more deployable formats. It's a system that basically runs 24-7 and it's a collaboration between the public and private sector. The end game is for us to get to small deployable units like this or drones that can actually be scalable or low cost and can provide farmers with information about crop stand, insect and disease pressure, soil moisture, all the other parameters that actually enable knowledge farming and allow them to actually be much more responsible with the resources that they put into their agricultural platforms. So as we think about the integration of physical and life sciences, you can go through the next couple of clicks to fill out the slide. We see things, innovations on the physical science side around sensing, power, analytics and communications that are directly attributable to biology. On the sensing front, microclimate sensors, metabolic, chemical, nutrient, biologic are all examples of things that are currently in the process of being atomized and deployed. We also see new technologies like acoustic that for example can pick up insect feeding or anomaly detection using advanced data analytics where we can actually identify disruptions in a field using satellite imagery long before human eye or even robotics can do on a field scale. New power systems that basically are low power. DARPA had a program called Zero Power as an example. There's energy harvesting which has been around for quite some time. The question is, can we make these systems biodegradable and can we also find ways that actually leverage the existing latency that exists within the plants themselves? From an analytics perspective, building state-of-the-art data sets that allow us to actually create much better algorithms using machine learning and also building out the models more providing the models with more informed information so that we actually have better predictive platforms. And then from a communication standpoint, remember most of agriculture is in very remote sites so our ability to actually be able to create new communication capabilities that will operate any place in the world is of particular interest in our fields of opportunity that are currently under development. And if we look at computing capacity now getting down to the size of a grain of sand. All right, next slide. For the last 10,000 years we've only bred for what we can see which means that we've pretty much ignored anything below the soil surface. And this is a particular example showing rooting depth that has been totally ignored by breeders for since the beginning of time. Next slide. Taking technologies that are coming from aerospace as well as military and oil drilling as an examples and medicine, we're actually repurposing those technologies that allow us to actually be able to measure root growth as well as soil physical characteristics real time. So rather than wait having to wait 10 years before we've got measurable data being able to do things on a much shorter time horizon. And these are just two examples of using X-ray root imaging or using thermoacrystic imaging to actually be able to allow us to make new measurements that can speed up the breeding process but also can potentially become new tools that actually allow farming to be more sustainable. Next slide. So at the end of the day what we're asking for is the integration of biology, engineering and data science. In this particular domain, there are significant advancements occurring in each one of these nodes, genomics, phenomics, sensors, robotics, data analytics. But the integration of these technologies, that's where we create the transformative impact that allows us to amplify crop productivity, climate resilience, and environmental sustainability. And these are efforts that are beginning to ramp up. It's certainly areas where we need to invest more. And now we're actually getting into the domain of systems research that enables us to actually be able to harness all of the elements that are absolutely essential for us to be able to deliver goods and services that have a potential to affect climate solutions. And one thing that we've all learned is that science leads markets follow. This is an example of the ag funders 2020 Farm Tech Report that came out earlier this year, characterizing the 2019 ag tech funding approximately $5 billion that went across a number of different platforms. This represents startups in ag biotechnology, novel farm systems, farm management, bioenergy, et cetera. So the capital is there in the marketplace. The imperative is for us as scientists, researchers, policymakers to actually determine what's the appropriate path for us to actually be able to affect the change. I kind of look at these technologies as being the first generation of that fourth agricultural revolution that we're capable of delivering. Next slide. So there's a lot of opportunity and there are a lot of tools out there and I think many of us here on this call today are in a position to actually be able to affect that change. Last slide. A short quote from Martin Luther King, great sciences, compassionate science. Thank you. Awesome. Excellent. Thank you so much, Joe. That was wonderful. I can see the questions pouring in. So I would like to turn it over to Jenny to start the Q&A. Thank you, Sarah. And thank you, Joe. Wonderful talk. I'm really enjoying all this plant biology talk. So we have several questions in from the audience members. We'll start with the Davy Parker. Davy, would you like to unmute yourself when you're able to and ask your question? I'll say the omics technologies have been around for quite a while now and he was showing that the cycle time breeding hasn't decreased. So what's missing? I mean, there are new innovations coming through, but the basic omics technologies have not fundamentally changed. So one of the things that's actually been missing is that, as you know, biology is noisy and it's very, very difficult for breeders to actually be able to separate the actual desired phenotype from a lot of the environmental noise that occurs in this particular space. There have been a lot of attempts to actually be able to address that by just increasing throughput on the front end, such as on the genetics and throughput. But the environment is such a compounding factor and the plasticity of the plants has actually made it much more difficult for us to actually be able to again be able to get our arms wrapped around some of that particular noise within the system. And the hope anyway at this particular stage is that with the new sensing technologies and the new data analytics capabilities that we can actually become much more astute at being able to identify those needles in the haystack. The other aspect I would touch on also is where the funding has gone traditionally. So a lion's share of the funding, at least on the private sector side, has gone into a very few number of crops. So the focus has been on a very narrow bandwidth of particular endpoints that has also limited our ability to actually get more of these innovations into a broader array of food crops. Thank you. Well, if we can, I'd like to squeeze in one more question from Francesca Cotrufo. Francesca, would you like to unmute yourself and ask a question? Hi, Joe. It was a very interesting presentation. One thing I see is that currently we are addressing this huge problem on two parallel rails, if you want. One is this high tech high precision farming that you have mentioned. And the other is the regenerative farming that the farmers are actually putting in place and companies like General Mills, McDonald's, Indigo are supporting with their initiatives. And even in departments, like I have some project which we're doing high tech and I have other projects with I think what we're doing with Gen and I don't see those two crossing, which, you know, I didn't see the world ecology on your slide. And I really think that that's where we can make the difference that the only biotech is sorry to say, but it's one of the problems that brought us here. And we need to integrate that with the ecology to make sure that we don't get into an unknown problem in a century. Excellent point, Francesca. And I agree with you completely. I use biotech in the context that it's a tool that allows us to actually be able to discover and advance genes and traits that are in the natural gene pool as well. So whether it's through conventional means or through gene editing, we're talking about a particular capability to identify those genes and traits and then be able to move them in the most expedient format. And to your point, there's 550 million farmers globally, 500 of them are farming less than two hectares. So if we're going to have an impact, we have to develop technologies that are scalable to those 500 million.


What's up everybody Jason here for Jatsby's cage base calm We just sold out the inception random number block for 10 teams in this R&B guys Features some of the biggest teams in the product with the Orioles angels red Sox Mets Rangers and plus more guys And again, we gave away one free spot if it sold out tonight, which it did Very nice. So here's the list of teams from the Oros down to the A's So again, we're gonna paste these 10 teams here just for the sorting team so that way they know or They know that these teams are part of the break and Then of course We're gonna click the dice roll. It's gonna be a three to two five times We're gonna randomize the nine names number one on the list after five times gets the free extra spot guys Three to two five times. Good luck. One two three four Boom mark There you go Congrats, buddy. You have the odds and number one after five times So let's put your name in here And we'll put a little character sign like a plus sign letting you know that's your free spot So now that makes a total of ten five times of the list of names and numbers one two three four five boom five times Marked on a mark them there and Of course five times here on the number zero one two three four five six ninety nine one Two three four five Five times four down to five Now remember guys any and all redemptions go to spot Zero as it states here and of course we match up with a number So of course if you get around my spot three and there's zero number like that first number being the three on the left side So number dash that goes to you and of course all the base cards There's probably gonna be base for a lot of these teams any non numbered cards which include base Maybe hits will be randomized to the group in one lot depends how many we get but we'll see but mainly it's usually just base cards So definitely that goes in one lot so again, let's put this at 24 and There we go guys Let's see what you guys got matched up with So mark with four Lauren you have one Chris Butler with nine Lauren with three Eric with six Mark Any and all redemptions for any of these teams that pop out goes to you automatically and your free spot Was two and seven and then you got Chris with eight and I'm marked with five So let me just delete this so doesn't move Obstinate that boom perfect And yeah, there you go guys so Coming up next in a separate video is gonna be the inception break itself. Good luck everybody. Thank you guys


Hi, it's Bridget, welcome to Above Life Channel. The purpose here is to inspire your spirit and to fill you up with hope. Today we're going to go to old Hollywood and we're going to talk with Greta Garbo. All right, so Greta Garbo is an actress that left Hollywood pretty abruptly, actually. And this morning, when I did my morning meditation, I actually connected to one of my guides in the afterlife, actress Marilyn Monroe, that I have a fondness for, a connection to. I connected with her in my meditation and then about an hour and a half later, I felt connected to Greta Garbo. And I thought, Greta Garbo, I don't really know that much about her. And so I thought it'd be a great opportunity to chat with her. Now she's known for leaving Hollywood, like at the height of her career. Now she left, she was a movie star during the silent film era and then she left Hollywood, like, I think in the early 1940s. And she had done many movies that were very successful and she transitioned very smoothly into the kind of golden age of film where she transitioned from being that silent film actress to an actress on the screen. And with a voice and her voice, she had a thick accent from my understanding and she was Swedish, so I know that about her. All right, so let's connect with her.  It's spring here finally, yay. And so a little bit of allergies, I think. All right, so Ms. Greta Garbo, come on in. Hello, nice to meet you, hello. She's not really fond on speaking, on talking on camera, but we're going to chat because I wanted to connect with your energy. Especially because there's been a lot of transition lately from old Hollywood actors who have moved into the afterlife and I feel a connection to the old Hollywood stars and I wanted to connect with you as someone who's a very well-known actress and very well respected for the roles that you have, but I have to ask, so what is the deal? Why did you leave Hollywood? Why? And thank you for being open to be able to talk to us about that because I know that in human context, you didn't do interviews or anything like that, you just left, you know? And so I'd like to get some insight into that and perhaps it can be of service and help someone else who might be an actor or actress, a musician, an entertainer, performer and inspire them in some way. So why did you leave Greta? And she says, you just get right to it, don't you, darling? You just get right to it. She says, I like your grit. I like that tenacity. I'm like, thank you. You feel like a very strong woman, Greta. Oh, if only I were, she says, if only I were. So you've been in the afterlife since like the, let's see, it's been a while. I know you died mid-80. You were like 85 when you died and I know that you died in the 80s, or I'm sorry, the 90s. I thought it was 91, but it's actually 1990. And I asked. I have a friend that likes Greta Garbo, so I asked. And I feel like you wanted your privacy. And I don't know though if like, did you get burned out? Was it just too much work? Or were you disenfranchised with Hollywood or what was it? She says, you know, it was any number of things. At the time I was quite tired. I was quite tired of performance, of performing. I wasn't happy with the roles that I was getting at the time and at the ripe old age of 35, 35, 36. Well, at the same time, Maryland left the planet. Actually, interesting, I'm noticing that.  And the choice of movies and roles was going to begin to be limited. Is that accurate? Yes. Yes, but I didn't run away. I think people perceived me as running away from Hollywood and that isn't truly the case. I simply was done. I was done being a movie star and I wondered what it would be like to have a normal life as normal as it could be after being Greta Garbo. Did you return then to Sweden, to your home? She said, I visited, but I stayed in New York mostly. I had come to know this place as my home and I have many friends here. Here, stateside in the US. And there wasn't really a timeline. I didn't know that it would be forever. I didn't know, it just seemed like a temporary or momentary thing. And as time went on, I came to appreciate the distance that I had. Eventually, the reporters and things, they lose interest in you and it's a blessing really. But I did sort of have the opposite effect later on. It became kind of a thing to be able to get a picture of me, an image of me, or to interview me. And I never quite understood the fascination with my life. Earlier on, yes, of course, the Hollywood parties and the experiences. And most people feel that it's so glamorous, but really it's all work, work, work, it's work. It's work, it's not, there's not much of a social time. And for those who did socialize, it was just parties. And that gets very old quickly. It doesn't really, it didn't really fulfill me. And although I entertained suitors and had men of interest, I never really could see myself settling down. She does have an accent and I can't quite get her accent as she's speaking, but she definitely has an accent. You guys, it's thick. It's a thicker accent. I can't do it right. It's not Italian or anything. It's definitely that Swedish accent, thicker. It's a thicker accent. And she says, I couldn't really see myself settling down with someone that was from Hollywood because they would want to be there and continue to be a part of it. I couldn't ask someone to change their life for me. That wouldn't be a fair thing to do, especially when it's a dream. So many come to Hollywood with stars in their eyes and they dream of making it big. And who I could not live with myself asking someone to leave all of that just for me. It was easy for me to leave it, though, yes, it was. And I did not run away. I want to express that I didn't run away, but it was way, it was too much, too much. I simply thought I would be leaving. I would be taking a break for some time. An undetermined amount of time, you would say today. I didn't realize it would be forever. So were you sad about that? Do you feel, do you have any regret about not being back in the public eye or not doing movies? I mean, do you have any regret about that? Did you miss making movies? If I could freeze time, she says, and have a fountain of youth, a magic potion to keep me young, I could have done movies a while longer. I couldn't bear the thought or the idea of being cast in roles that did not fulfill my need to be excellent. At my craft, there's a great deal of integrity. She's like speaking with a great deal of integrity about acting and how she knew that she was on this at this point where it was going to be done soon, she felt like, because back in those days, the age thing was a big deal. I think there's ages of now there really was then like mid 30s, that's old for an actress, you know? And she felt that things were starting to change and she didn't want to be known as the actress that aged on camera. She just didn't want to be known that way. She says much better to leave as a legend. You do think highly of yourself, I can feel that you have a confidence about you. I would like to think so, yes, thank you, I would like to think so.  And that's not old, 35 is not old, that's to be clear. Is that accurate? Yes, part of me was angry, bitter, yes, a bit bitter. But that's not why I didn't give, that is not the reason why I did not give interviews. I simply just wanted to be a average person, return to a regular life or know a regular life. I didn't expect, I suppose a part of me died when I left and I didn't really get a new life in this life because there was a part of me that felt robbed of opportunity because of the structure of things, the nature of things in Hollywood. There weren't the kind of roles that there are today for women. There weren't serious roles like that. Everything was quite overly expressive and very dramatic and like it's so tiresome, so boring, it does not challenge you and stimulate you in the ways that you need that, you need that to feel alive. So were you interested in play acting or theater because you could have been into theater? She says, no, not really. She says, I had many friends in theater and I enjoyed watching their performances. They were wonderful, but I did not understand how they could carry on about that, especially later on as time went on. It just, it didn't seem an option for me, a fit for me at that time. After you've been in film, for me it seemed like I reached the top of the pinnacle and to do anything else would be less than. And I know it feels as though I gave up and a part of me did, a part of me did. So was there mental health things? Was there like, or was there addictions or anxieties or was there other things going on for you that kind of brought you to this point? She says, a breaking point. I didn't have a breakdown, dear. I did not have a breakdown. One of the most sane things I ever did was to leave Hollywood. One of the most sane things I did and I did keep some very wonderful friendships over my lifetime. And in fact, and she's showing me like Liza Minnelli, Judy Garland was her mom. She shows me that, like Minnelli. I don't know why, but she doesn't say Judy Garland. She says, Minnelli, the Minnellis. I don't know why she's referring to that. If you know, put it in the comments below. And then she says someone named Stan. I'm not sure who Stan is. And then I see her like at performances, like watching other people like plays or at a club, listening to music, like Frank Sinatra, like I see her. She's showing me actually Sammy Davis, Jr. She's showing me him for some reason. I'm not sure if she frequented Hollywood at all or not or if she just left and wanted to stay the heck away. But she's showing me that. So I don't know if time-wise, if that was during her career or after. I think it would be maybe after, but it seemed like kind of a big deal when she would come back and try to return or try to attend something, like even go to lunch or go to any kind of a luncheon or an event. It would be kind of a big thing. So it kind of seems like she tried to, when she came to visit into Hollywood or to Los Angeles to visit, it seems like it was more quiet and intimate. And she preferred that. So can you talk a little bit about mental health and that kind of thing? Were there things going on within you that caused this kind of need for to leave Hollywood? And she said, are you talking about pills? Many people took pills. There were pills for everything to wake up, to go to sleep to. She says, that didn't really impact me much. She says, I did take some sleeping medication at some points because I was so, I was so overworked that it felt really difficult to sleep, to go to sleep, it felt like.  It seems like very thinking, very thought, think, think, think, think, think. And no children, did you not have children? No children? No, but I feel like you were, ooh, I don't know if I wanna say that. I feel like she may have been pregnant or lost a baby, had a miscarriage or something. And I feel like you were dating, or you were either interested in, or actually dating somebody who was married or who was with somebody else. And that may have been like a no-no kind of a thing, but I feel like you really genuinely cared for this person. If you guys know what that is, write it in the comments below who that might be. And she said, she's showing me her mom got sick. And so she went to be with her mother. It looks like family, like her mom, home, back home, she's saying, going to visit back home to be with her mother. That's what she shows me, so I don't know what's going on there.  And I know many people picture me as being this lonely old hag. This lonely old woman. She says, lonely old woman. She makes me feel like it's a little hag. She says, and yes, if it seems superficial beauty was very important. Yes, it was important. And I knew, I knew that. And I didn't want to age publicly. I didn't want to be compared to who I was or to myself. That's the worst comparison you can have is to yourself. And she said, I didn't want to be known as some old hag. And maybe that's perhaps not selfish. And I wasn't a miserable old woman. I wasn't a sad woman. She has a lot of like, she's kind of sassy. She's got strong opinions and views and things. She feels political, like she has some opinions. Interesting, I feel like she was a fan of the Regans. Like Ronald Reagan, I feel like she was a fan. And I don't know if it's cause he was like good looking or what the deal was, but she was a fan of him. I feel like she knew Nancy too. That's kind of interesting. And I don't know what her party affiliation would be, but I just, I feel that, I just gonna share that. And I think that's it. Is there anything else that you would like to share or any kind of inspiration you'd like to give to others? And it's like, she wants to say, don't give up. And she says, it takes hard work. But if you're doing something that you truly enjoy, then do it. Do it while you can. She says, do it while you can. As much as you can while you can. While the opportunity is there and while it's ripe. Do it while you can. She says, that's her, that's advice. Thank you very much. That was lovely, thank you. And I can see she has a sister also. It looks like she has a sister, so. All right, this is Bridget at Above Life Channel. You've been watching a video channeling session with Greta Garbo in the afterlife. Be sure to pop your comments below, fill in some of the gaps in the blanks here because you know here at Above Life Channel, when I'm doing a channel, I'm very real, very authentic as a psychic and a medium. And I don't always know all the answers, you guys. I don't Google it up and memorize things and do research because why? Because you guys can do that on your own. I like to have conversations that are insightful, interesting, and that are going to what?  So live it, just live it. Thanks so much for watching.