One of the objectives from our lesson is to understand the role of the changing sun angle and the tilt of the earth on its axis and the roles that those play in the changing of the seasons. And so to look at that we're going to start with a virtual flashlight. And we have a situation here where our virtual flashlight is pointed directly at an object so the light comes in perpendicularly and strikes the object. You can see that the light is fairly bright, it's spread over a small area so the amount of light per unit area is high and the light is intense as it strikes the object. But if we change the angle of our flashlight and make the light come in at a lower angle and strike the surface, the light now gets spread out over a larger area so the amount of light per unit area is now lower and the light is dimmer on the surface. It's not as intense so even though the same amount of light is coming out of the flashlight it's dimmer on the surface because of the lower angle that is striking the surface. You could try that experiment at home with a real flashlight if you wanted but in a nutshell you've seen the reason for the change of seasons. Earth is tilted on its axis at a 23.5 degree angle and as it revolves around the sun the location that gets the direct beam of light when it's coming in perpendicularly, that location changes throughout the year. It's always between 23.5 degrees north latitude and 23.5 degrees south latitude. For example over the equator the equator gets the direct beam of light twice a year on the spring equinox and the autumnal equinox and during other parts of the year that direct beam is over other various locations between 23.5 north and 23.5 south. To better see how the changing sun angle impacts the seasons we have an animation here of the earth revolving around the sun and the earth is tilted on its axis at the 23.5 degree angle and the seasonal designations here are for the northern hemisphere so we can see the situation in the northern hemisphere and why it's warmer in northern hemispheric summer. We can see here that when it's summer in the northern hemisphere the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun so the sun's light is coming in and striking the surface more directly and so the heating power of the sun is higher in the northern hemisphere during summer. Meanwhile in the southern hemisphere that hemisphere is tilted away from the sun and the light gets spread out over a larger area the sunlight is coming in at a lower angle and so the heating power of the sun is reduced in the southern hemisphere that's why the southern hemisphere is having its winter while the northern hemisphere has its summer. We can check out the situation which is just the opposite then in northern hemispheric winter. During the winter's northern hemisphere the winter, the sun angle is low in the northern hemisphere. It's coming in at a lower angle and the light is spreading out over larger areas so the heating power of the sun is reduced because the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun and the light is coming in at a low angle. Meanwhile in the southern hemisphere the sun is coming in more directly, the light is coming in more directly and the heating power of the sun is stronger in the southern hemisphere and that's why when it's winter in the northern hemisphere it's summer and warmer in the southern hemisphere. With this basic understanding then we can ask ourselves a couple of interesting questions like what would happen if we change the angle of the Earth's tilt to say 50 degrees so it's much more tilted. Well that would actually result in more extreme seasonal changes because say we had a 50 degree angle of tilt here the northern hemisphere during winter would be tilted even farther away from the sun and the sun angle would be even lower and the sunlight would be spread over a much larger area so the heating power of the sun would be reduced even further making winter in the northern hemisphere even colder. Meanwhile in the southern hemisphere the sunlight would be coming in even more directly and it would be even hotter so you'd have more extreme seasons if you increased the angle of the Earth's tilt. But if you reduced it all the way to zero say the Earth had no tilt on its axis then seasonal variation would go away completely because the angle that the sun's light was coming in to the Earth would not change throughout the year and so we wouldn't have any changes to our seasons.


So a key way to authenticate users is using passwords, but there are other ways. Passwords is what you know, there's also what you have. So if you have a token with you, that can be used to authenticate you. The idea is that the person who has that token is allowed to access the system. And there are different types of tokens. I think we will not talk about them so much. One that you use on a regular basis today is your mobile phone. You can think of that as a token in the case that you having it in your possession allows you to do certain things. Like when a bank, you try to do a bank transaction, the bank may send you an SMS or a message saying here's your one-time password. And you need to have your mobile phone to receive that message to get that one-time password. So that's a combination there of using passwords, but the presence of your phone is necessary for that to work. The other types of tokens, common other ones are swipe cards.  And there are different types of cards like credit cards, ATMs. So your ATM card is a token. You need to have that to get access to your account via the ATM. Of course it comes also with PIN. So it uses password type authentication as well. There are different types of cards. Some of them are smarter than others. Some of them have an embedded processor in them so that they can do some operations. There are some cards which can be used to generate passwords. So they have a small screen on them or even a keypad on the card itself such that when you want to make a transaction with a bank then it can generate a one-time password that you use to log in and to do a particular transaction. We don't see them so often around. So there are different types of cards which are used as tokens. Another one which you may come across is the USB type tokens.  If you have that USB token, the computer knows it's you. So that is a little bit more common and commonly used. Some of them implement some cryptographic techniques to do that. They use different encryption algorithms to support that authentication. But I don't want to spend too much time on tokens. One of the problems with tokens is if you must have it in your presence that if you lose it then you cannot be authenticated or if someone else gets a hold of that then they can become you. So therefore tokens are commonly used with another form of authentication as well. It's not just tokens but maybe token combined with password. And the other thing with tokens is that there needs to be usually some special hardware to read it. Whether it's a scanner to read your swipe card needs to be installed or if it's some special software to plug in your USB disk to be able to read it. So that requires some setup in advance. There are some more advanced cards which have keypads on them or displays so that they can generate values for you. Like generating random numbers where that generation is done such that it's aligned with a system that you're trying to access. And again the presence of that token allows you to learn that random number which is used really as a password to get access to the system. But tokens are a way for authenticating based on what you have. The other thing is what you do or what you are. So biometric authentication. And it works under the premise that some of your physical characteristics are unique than someone else has those physical characteristics. So if we can measure those physical characteristics as some registration phase or some enrollment phase and then when you try to access a system again those characteristics are measured and compared against the registered characteristics and if they match then you're authenticated. So what characteristics can be used? Facial characteristics, the shape, the position of your nose, your eyes and so on on your face. Fingerprints, an obvious one and we use that quite often. Here at SIT every day I scan my fingerprint when I come to work and I leave. When we access some of the rooms there's a fingerprint reader on there so that's an example that we see quite common. The shape of your hand can sometimes be used to distinguish between people. Your retina or the retinal pattern which is basically the think of the blood vessels in your eyeball can be used.  The signature, so the way that you sign your name we use that all the time and your voice. So the pattern of your voice can be used to try to identify a particular user. Where's my pictures? So for the iris and the retina I'll just bring up some pictures so you're clear on that. So your iris is the coloured part around your pupil and if you can see there's a lot of patterns in here and those patterns are unique to the individual. So the normal approach is a normal camera takes a photo or a video can analyse those patterns and then later when you want to access a system again the same process takes place and they compare against the patterns which are registered and those which you supply and see if there's a match. The retina, retinal scanning involves looking at the really the blood vessels on your eye. Again they form some patterns and they're unique amongst the individuals. This requires to scan the retinal scan requires a special light scan. You can't use a normal camera to scan here so it requires some special equipment to do a scan which is usually much more expensive than just a normal camera. The idea with these and also the others is that the first phase when you register same as you register your password you choose a password when you create an account we need to do some registration or sometimes called enrolment with biometric authentication so they take a photo say of your eye or you scan your fingerprint in the registration process they don't just store a copy of the photo of your eye or a copy of your fingerprint there are algorithms applied to try to extract the patterns out of that so it's important to recognize that when we use biometric authentication we don't just have a photo of the eye we actually there are algorithms that try to work out a template or some equations or some key features of the eye that make it unique to you and usually they are stored as some data points or some equations and then when you try to authenticate again another photo is taken of your eye and the software then tries to extract the key features of that second one when you authenticate and the features are compared and if the features are close enough match then you're authenticated if they're not close then you're not allowed in and importantly in most of the cases there's not an exact match because of the inaccuracies of collecting the data so when you register your eye then the system records that but then when you come to access the system it takes another photo the photo may have some inaccuracies in that it may be a different position as to where you're first registered slightly off the center of your eye there may be a different orientation, different lighting there may be some dirt in some cases so it won't be exactly the same photo and the features that it recognizes will not be exactly the same as those that are registered so the system must find a match which is close enough it's not an exact match and that leads to some problems same with fingerprint and all the other biometric systems that it's... when we try to check if this is the right person it's not an exact match it's saying alright enough parts of a match therefore we'll let them in but that can lead to inaccuracies in the authentication so the next few slides just show some of the trade-offs between the different physical characteristics and we'll discuss some of them and this issue that the match is not exact compared to passwords and tokens they usually require much more complex techniques to work they usually require some special hardware maybe a camera or a fingerprint reader so more expensive to set up so that's one of the trade-offs in some cases they can be quite accurate but in some cases their accuracy can be cause issues that is they cannot authenticate the person correctly and we define that so which one's better? which one's more accurate? well a rough comparison is shown here amongst those different physical characteristics of cost versus accuracy cost is how much a cost to use or to buy the equipment to do this accuracy is how good it authenticates or finds the correct person and we'll define it a little bit more later but it's showing in this plot that the worst accuracy the ones on the left voice, face, signature and hand meaning maybe that someone can masquerade as you, pretend to be you if they can use those they may copy your signature copy your face, well no but they may have a face or adjust their characteristics such that when the system compares theirs with what's stored in the database it may be a close enough match to someone else that the system accepts it the definition of that accuracy in a moment the best is the iris scanning so taking a photo of your iris but the most expensive is iris scanning retina is also expensive I think iris is coming down a bit but it's still, even though you knew it's a normal camera it still needs to be quite accurate and stable photo to do that so a rough comparison or trade off between cost and accuracy so which one's best, there's no one best solution it depends on how much you're willing to spend and how accurate you want and actually there's two main levels or two main measures of accuracy which we'll see in a moment the general approach for each of them there are three steps usually we use enrollment sometimes we call that registration same when you've set up your account you register your username and password when we set up our system we enroll the user and that involves we need some physical user interface if it's fingerprint scanning we need the fingerprint scanner and enrollment may involve scanning the fingerprint the user supplying their name or some ID pin in this case maybe a name and password depending on the system the sensor senses your physical characteristics and converts it into a set of features so it doesn't just take a photo of your fingerprint it doesn't take a photo of your eye it takes that photo or that image and then does some pattern matching or pattern recognition on that to try and extract some key features from that image and those features are stored on the system in the same way that one user registers their username and password the username and password are stored in a database here the features and the name of the user are stored in a database on the system this is the enrollment phase so the features say in a fingerprint maybe some unique points that identify that fingerprint so they do analysis and try and identify some unique points there or some unique changes in the curves of your fingerprints that identify you those features then once you're enrolled so you register, you supply your name and your features of your physical characteristics are stored in the database then there are two things that we can use biometric authentication for verification and identification slightly different and slightly different in terms of the difficulty in doing it first verification this is a user comes to the system they've already enrolled they supply say their fingerprint they also supply their name PIN or ID so they supply their identifier saying I am Steve and here is my fingerprint and what the system does it senses your fingerprint it extracts the key features from that sensed fingerprint and then since you supplied your name the system looks up in the database and finds the recorded values from the enrollment so when you enrolled your features were stored and your features they say we store them in a template so it's again not the exact photo of your eye or your fingerprint it's a set of key features which is called a template for you so since you supplied your name the template for you is extracted from the database and the features from your fingerprint are compared to the features in that template if they are close enough there's a true answer returned you're authenticated if they're not close enough you're not authenticated you're not allowed in so the feature matcher in this case just compares your template your features which were obtained from enrollment with those obtained when you scan your finger to try to access and if it's true then you're verified the system verifies this is Steve because the fingerprint supplied matches that which was enrolled the other process is identification and if you see people walk into SIT or leave it in the afternoon you'll see that they scan their fingerprint and that's performing identification we don't type in our name or ID we just scan the fingerprint what happens you scan your finger the sensor gets the data it identifies or extracts some features from that and now the features extracted have to be compared against all of the templates stored in the database that is for SIT all of the faculty and staff members have their features stored from the enrollment procedure in the database the end templates and the one that was sensed is compared against that and if you find one of them is a close match and we'll have some threshold where all of the others are not a close match then that one is the user which is identified if there are multiple which are a close match then we don't identify the user because it could be one of several or if none of them are a close match again we haven't identified the user so the result here is that the user is identified or not slight difference which ones easier to implement verification or identification from the the system implementation which ones easier to do verify user or identify user wrong not identify anyone else want to guess quick anyone verify good why well it's to do with the feature matcher it's easier to implement the feature matcher because with verification all we're doing really is fingerprint for example we get some features from that some key points on the fingerprint that the algorithm detects and we extract from the database the features from the user who entered their name and compare them if they're close close enough match true whereas with identification we supply a fingerprint we get some features and we have to compare that with all of the possible fingerprint features for every user so the comparison is harder that's all here we just compare with one here we have to compare with all in the system may take more time especially if there's a large number of users in the system like millions for example with respect to the matching we will not look at any of the algorithms for how they track features or how they do the matching but the idea is that the algorithm compares the features extracted for the against say one of the templates and determines a score gives a score as to how close it is to match what's the closeness between the supplied one and the enrolled one and if the score is above some threshold they are authenticated now that leads to some problems if the match is not exact then we may get errors and this picture tries to describe what can happen let's have a look on the horizontal axis is a matching score and the idea of this picture is that a normal user say a genuine user when you compare their supplied values against the registered values the matching score sometimes will be very high a high matching score means it's very very near almost exact so it can be as we go right further it means it's very high but we may have some average value on average we're very close and that's acceptable the average matching of a normal user but sometimes I may try to scan my fingerprint and the system compares against my registered one and maybe I didn't put my finger on the right orientation maybe there's dirt or moisture on my finger and therefore I'm the genuine user but the system comes up with a lower matching score it's not a close match so sometimes we may get a lower matching score and this bell curve here for the genuine user tries to illustrate that in most cases we'll have a close match but sometimes we'll have a low matching score and that's this left hand tail of the bell curve here and what we do in the system is we set up a threshold a decision threshold and we say if the matching score is above the threshold they pass if below they don't get in if we set the threshold high if we increase the threshold then if we have a low score maybe my finger is dirty or has moisture on it I may not be accepted into the system the systems may see I have a low score below the threshold then I am rejected I'm not authenticated and we can say that's a false non-match so it's a non-match the system said this one does not match you are not Steve but that was wrong I was okay so we call that a false non-match or a false negative is another name you'll hear it was the correct user but the system returned no it's not the correct user so we've made a mistake we're inaccurate it's false and it's a negative it's returned no correct user or non-match we don't want that case to happen we don't want the system to say when I scan my finger downstairs they know you are not Steve well it's possible because inaccuracies in the measurement in the sensing now from another perspective someone who's not me so I've registered someone who's not me maybe trying to pretend to be me they may have a profile of their fingerprint or their physical characteristics and in most cases their profile will give a low score it will not match mine compared to my fingerprint the score for someone else should be quite low but there may be chances that a game because of inaccuracies when I registered my fingerprint there may be chances that the system when someone else scans their fingerprint the system thinks it's me and that's so this second bell curve tries to illustrate there's a probability that the matching score that this imposter user gets may be high enough such that it exceeds the decision threshold what that means is if if the imposter is lucky or if the system is set up so the threshold is quite low then the imposter scans their finger the system says they have a high score it's above the threshold so this imposter is accepted in as me this is called a false match it has matched me when it's not me so false again it's an error and it's a match that the system has returned successful when it should not have also called a false positive the system returns positive but it was a mistake so we talk about false negatives and false positives or false non-matches and false matches both of them we don't want both of them are errors or what we say inaccuracies of the system but generally it's a tradeoff between the two if we want to reduce the number of false non-matches the times when it rejects me the normal user we set the threshold to be high sorry hang on if we we set the threshold to be low if we want the system not to reject me then I set the threshold to be low we move the threshold to the left but the problem what happens then is that the system may accept someone else's me so if I want to reduce the false non-matches I may increase the false matches or the other way I don't want anyone else to be able to access as me the imposter to be get access so I set the threshold to be very high meaning if the match is not very very close they will not get in but that may mean more times I'm rejected so it's a tradeoff between those two the false positives and false negatives and most or all the biometric systems have to deal with this tradeoff some have better tradeoffs than others this tries to illustrate that the tradeoff between the false match rate and the false non-match rate in a general system let's say just for system B we have some system and it's really showing that you either get a low false non-match rate say at this point on the curve a low false non-match but you get a high false match rate or you can have a low false match rate but a high false non-match rate or somewhere in the middle that's the idea here which one do you want? it depends upon what your application is let's say we want a very high security system we don't want imposters to get in so we don't want anyone who's not the real user to get access so we'd like to be in this operating area that is we want a very low false match rate false match rate, false positives we don't want to allow imposters to get access so we want a false match rate to be very low but that may mean we get a high false non-match rate imposters don't get in but normal users are rejected quite often that's what may happen with high security applications and that may be reasonable okay so let's say we wanted high security on one of the rooms here we have fingerprint we could set the threshold such that it's very hard for the imposter to get in but it means quite often it rejects me the normal user another application there are forensic applications where say law enforcement need to prove that it was a particular person so here we want the opposite we want a very low false non-match rate very low false negative and we may accept a very high false match rate that is it should never reject the correct person so there's trade-offs depending on your application which operating point you want to work at the last slide I think for this shows some of those values puts values to some different applications or different physical characteristics again on the horizontal axis we have false match rate the false positives this is the system saying yes you're allowed in but in fact you're an imposter so the imposter is allowed in percentage of false match rates shown here from quite low point 0.01% up to 1% a logarithmic scale and on the vertical axis false non-match false negatives this is the percentage of time that someone has rejected when they're a normal user and it gives some data points there let's see some for example with fingerprint recognition the blue circles or the white circles in fact this line here this is showing the typical characteristics with fingerprint applications it's saying if you want a false match rate which is low very low that is never allow the imposter to get in then you've got to accept a false non-match rate in the order of close to 10% so if you want the false match rate to be low very very few imposters get in that may mean that may be up to 10% of the normal users are rejected or 10% of the times the normal users are rejected that's what the picture shows if you want a lower false match rate you have to accept a higher false a lower false non-match rate you have to accept a higher false match rate with voice recognition the black squares if you want a low false match rate you've got a very high in the order of 50 to 80% false non-match rate what that means if you want to never let the imposter in then you can set it up but maybe 50% of the times the normal user will be rejected and the last one maybe the best case the best case is the furthest to the bottom left where they're both low the worst case is the furthest to the top right where they're both high which one's furthest to the bottom left well here there's diamond the blue diamond is the iris scanning this is saying if you're using iris scanning you can get a very low false match rate that is someone says they are Steve they come up to the iris scanner it scans their eye and 0.0001% of the time it'll accept them most of the time it will identify you are not Steve so identify imposters quite well but several percent of the time it will reject me when it scans my eye and I say I'm Steve maybe a few one, two, three percent of the time it will say no you are not Steve but that's considered the best in terms of accuracy but still very expensive to do compared to the others and that is all we want to cover on these other authentication techniques in summary the user presents their ID and some authentication information and the system verifies that they authorize to access the system and that authentication information we've spent some time on it could be passwords what you know maybe today we mentioned it could be tokens something you have or it could be something about you your biometrics with respect to passwords you are going to have to implement websites applications you need to store user information and you'll always remember generate a random salt you store that and you store a hash of the password combined with the salt which hash algorithm to use is a question we didn't really talk about MD5 is not considered secure anymore SHA SHA256 SHA512 are considered secure but for storing passwords the hash algorithm we would like an algorithm which is what fast or slow we want a fast or slow hash algorithm hands up for fast for security to stop the attacker we want a slow hash algorithm to stop the attacker at least remember what the attacker does is they calculate hashes on many possible passwords the slower the algorithm the longer it will take them so from that perspective we'd say we'd like a slow algorithm what's the problem with a slow hash algorithm well when a normal user goes to log in your system needs to calculate the hash if it takes 10 seconds to calculate the hash of one password that's good from the perspective of stopping an attack but when I try to log in I supply my password the system takes 10 seconds to respond you're logged in so we need a trade off there it needs to be slow so it's hard for the attacker to try many passwords but fast enough such that the system responds to the normal user there are some algorithms hash algorithms designed to be configurable in terms of the speed so there are different algorithms recommended for storing for using hashing of passwords I think some are called sCrypt and bCrypt and there may be a couple of others as well with respect to choosing passwords an important thing for a large system is to make users aware of how to choose good passwords and the benefits of choosing good passwords it's not so good in practice to force them to use particular types of passwords because they will either forget them and not access your system or write them down and release them through other plans tokens and biometrics can increase the security but they often come at an extra cost and more inconvenience for users so passwords are still widely spread getting users to choose passwords in a good way is still hard and leads to security issues and still many people have accounts that they can get into where someone guesses their password and can do something with it multi factor authentication comes into play a lot where we don't just depend upon one authentication technique we combine it with another build up the security there are many other things with user authentication which we don't cover some of them are listed there


Hey everybody, it's Brett and today I'm going to be doing an unboxing of these Oedro all-weather floor mats. They're going to be good for any 2017 to 2024 CX-5. I do have a 2020 CX-5 here today that we're going to be demonstrating them in. I'm going to be doing the unboxing, putting them in the vehicle, showing them what they look like in the vehicle, and then giving you my honest opinion on whether I like them or not. And these floor mats are made with advanced TPE, tri-extruded composition material, and whether you're going to the ski slopes, going to the beach, or just driving through any rain or dust, they're going to protect the inside of your vehicle. But let's get to the unboxing and get them in the vehicle so you can see how good they look. You can also buy these in the link in the description below. Let's get to it. So this is how they come. Get your razor blade or a knife, whatever you may have, to get these open. Make sure you're not cutting into the box, because the last thing you want to do is cut your floor mats and set that off to the side. So looks like I have a really nice set here. So this is the back one, I would imagine. Or actually, this is the cargo mat for the back. And then I have my front floor mats here. So these are the fronts. They say Oedro on them. And then this is for the second row seats, which is all one piece. Let's get them into the vehicle and see how they look. All right, we'll start off with the easy one. Put the back one in here. You've got to have the flat side up to the seats, and that fits in there absolutely perfectly. Very nice. I like the material. Definitely a non skid material. Let's go do the front seats and then the second row. All right, we'll do the driver's side first. The logo always goes to the outside of the door. So you just fit it in there like so. It fits right in with the snaps, and you can see it goes, it lifts up to the edges here and fits in there very nicely. Let's go put the passenger side one in. All right, once again, the logo goes to the outside of the vehicle, and it fits in there very nicely. You just snap it like that, and it goes right up to the edges of the floor, and looks really, really good. So before we put the back seat floor mat in, I suggest just putting these front seats up just a little bit. This is just going to make it easier to get that back floor mat in. So this is all one piece, so you're just going to want to kind of put both sides down. Put it down like that. I'll get the other side. And that fits in there absolutely perfectly. And once again, it goes all the way up to the edges of the flooring here, so it's going to keep your stuff protected really, really well. And now the final touches. And of course, you got to do the spill test. Look at how that water beads up. That'll be really easy to clean. Oh yeah, look at that. It's right up. I like that it has the grooves in there, makes it easy to clean up, and it's like new. All right everybody, so after installing these floor mats, seeing the quality of the material and just how well they fit in this Mazda CX-5, I would highly recommend these Oedro all-weather floor mats for anybody looking to put some protection in their vehicle. For the price point, the quality of the material, and just the other prices of some of the other all-weather floor mats out there, you really can't beat this deal and really nice floor mats, so I highly recommend them. Thanks again for checking out the video, and remember to like, subscribe, and share on my YouTube channel. I really appreciate it. Until our next automotive product review, have a great day.


After burns cleaner with no smoke sometimes the customers think it's magic and that's what I think we put chemicals We always invite people to come see our processes. It burns cleaner with no smoke. It burns longer So wood charcoal burns for about 35 to 40 minutes. This can burn up to three hours nonstop So it burns cleaner it burns longer, but most importantly We do not cut down a single tree everyone else cuts down trees in this country produce charcoal We have no business with trees. We just leverage waste. So we have a strong social impact We have a strong economic impact because we're creating jobs and we have even a strong business impact because we're pumping money back into a System just from ways that everyone else is ignoring. This is what's so special about cooking


Welcome to this new news update on CMC Espresso from the Frankfurt Office of CMC Markets. On the weekend it was Goldman Sachs publishing a sell recommendation on equities. Yesterday the famous hedge fund manager Jeff Gantleig recommended to sell everything but gold and JP Morgan later in the day wrote that the medium term upside for equities is limited and equities are likely to keep underperforming most other asset classes. And even the longer term picture is not very attractive, JP Morgan added saying that one should use the current rally to ultimately sell into. It is a fact that US companies were beating expectations for the second quarter by around 20% but only because the Q2 earnings hurdle rate was low. JP Morgan thinks that the profit projections appear too optimistic for the second half and for 2017 this is a medium term constraint. Any spell of better economic data is met with the Fed opening doors to hikes which brings a stronger US dollar acting as an automatic dampener for equities. On the other hand spells of weaker data flow putting questions the earning delivery. JP Morgan thinks that this is not a great combination and after showing some strength on Friday that is another topic to watch today is the price of oil that showed some strength on Friday. It bounced off the 200 day moving average and now it dropped sharply yesterday and the Bank of America thinks that unless oil manages to credibly rebound and sustain its bounce energy companies appear to be overvalued by about 50%. Currently oil company stocks went up 100% and more in the bounce that we had in the price of oil this year. Should that bounce in the price of oil not be sustainable there is some equity and correction risk in those stocks that's what at least Bank of America thinks. Watch today if oil can hold and that is WTIU with crude oil if that price can hold $40 a barrel if it is not possible and should oil slice through $40 a barrel it is very probable that the market's attention will quickly shift back to weak oil, weak Chinese renminbi and weak credit in a repeat of a scenario that we had last summer.


Hi everyone. This is Jason Zach from Nathaniel School of Music. Here are five super easy approaches on the piano to accompany yourself. You could be a beginner, you could be a intermediate person or whatever, but these are five approaches which I mean they are easy to play and I think also very easy to understand. It doesn't require a lot of music theory and a lot of the technical stuff and definitely not a lot of notation and things like that. So some of our YouTube videos are like this, a bit more freer viewing so to speak. So I encourage you to get your keyboards out, get a notebook out if possible and play along with me. Whatever I do in the video, it'll be great if you can follow along. If you're new to the channel, hello, there's a subscribe button up there somewhere or down there somewhere. Click that please. There's a bell also for those of you who don't know that will give you all the notifications whenever we go live, whenever we drop a new video or in our channel's cases a daily riff. So without any further delay, let's get cracking. First approach would be a fifth chord in the right hand. Now let's first figure out what a fifth chord is. A fifth chord is not like those major and minor chords with three notes. It just needs two notes. Fifth chords for piano, we just steal them from the guitarist who call it power chord and we don't play it in the power area or the left hand. We played in the right hand instead. So if you take one fifth chord, there's something magical which can happen just with this one fifth chord. So what am I playing right now? I'm playing a G fifth. So G fifth would be root fifth octave, root perfect fifth in the octave, right? You can invert that chord as well. You can do D, G, D. You can also do G, D, G. And remember this tutorial is to accompany yourself on the piano, not necessarily to play a tune on the keyboard.  So you go fifth chord, just hold it or play it on a pulse and let's say this fifth chord is part of a scale, G major scale. What's the one of G major? G, right? So play some G's. And I'd always encourage you to try and sing something because it's for the purpose of accompanying. So you should sing. What did I do there? I moved from the G root to to a very legal note in the G major scale, right? E is there. So I moved from the root to the sixth. And the bass movement makes all the difference for your harmony. It's not necessarily what all you change in the right hand. Yes, the right hand change does matter, but the left hand dictates it. It governs the way your song is actually moving in a journey. So. To check that out, right hand did nothing to move it. It just stayed there and look at the left hand. It just played G, E, C, D or something, something in the G major scale. Let's just keep exploring. Sometimes your voice can influence the choice of the left hand. Sometimes the left hand could decide or influence your voice, what you sing. Like, for example. That's a bit more uplifting. So. You end up singing what you're playing. So. That's the five. So usually at the five, it's a cycling note. So it's the five of the scale. So it's a dominant. It wants to come back to a loop. And then I would encourage you to do it. So you can do it. You can do it. So you can do it. You can do it. You can do it. You can do it. You can do it. You can do it. You can do it. You can do it. You can do it. And then I would encourage you to create a loop using the fifth chord with a moving bass. Don't overdo it with the bass. It doesn't have to sound this peaceful as well. The fifth chord is not telling you that it's happy or sad. It's like a very neutral sound. So if you're on a G minor key or some minor. A lot of rock songs use this. I'm on the G minor now. You can do these things which you could never do with chords. You can do like a minor sixth going to a major sixth. That's something you can't do with when you're playing actual chords. It's very tricky. Even if you're a guitar player watching this you may agree with me. Now even that F sharp which is wrong it kind of still works. You can get a very Phrygian sound by playing those dissonances D to flat. So the fifth chord don't think of it as happy or sad. It's a very neutral sound and it's all down to your left hand doing its thing. Usually the right hand of the piano is considered the creative hand but with this way of harmonizing or accompanying I'm sure you'll agree that it's actually your left hand doing all the work. Your right hand is well just fixed. It's just a pillar. It's just staying there. So that was one way I think you can use as a beginner or at any level to just make some music or accompany yourself or if you're given a chord progression and maybe you don't know inversions or shifting of chords becomes a bit tricky. You could read the chart. G E minor C major D major. Let's say that's your chart. You can just play G major. Don't think of it as G major. Think of it as a G fifth because you're in the key of G and just play the root notes of all those chords in the left hand. Left hand. You can also use this technique to kind of freely accompany yourself playing songs you don't even need to know the chords to. For example, I don't know the chords to this song. So I'm just kind of feeling it. I know I'm on the G scale. I'm just looking at any of those seven notes. And the sky is the limit here. Also kind of makes you sing something creative. It's also great for gospel music because a lot of the hymns we play in church are extremely sophisticated harmonically. The notes move in counterpoint. They move in choral or orchestral harmony. So it becomes very tricky to kind of play chords for a hymn or for a traditional church song. So this technique can really help you. For example, if we pick... Kind of works with just a fifth there. You can explore. Kind of helps you to navigate through very complex songs as well like hymns in a gospel scenario. So this is a good strategy I think to get cracking on the piano. However, I'm not done with the lesson. I have four more. Let's move on to the next way to accompany yourself super easy on the piano. So a lot of people on our channel seem to watch my arpeggio lessons. So for some reason I tend to go overboard with the concept. There are a lot of advanced things out there on the channel where we add some notes, we do some fancy runs and stuff. But in this part to accompany, you just need to take a chord and just go, just figure out how do you break this up over a pattern. So let's say you're counting quavers one and two and three and four and then this is my chord two and three and so how do you play a note for all those divisions right one and two and three and four and so you could do something like this. There we go. So while playing this arpeggio just look how basic it is right. It's just the chord starting with the bottom note, the middle note, the high note and just kind of rounding them. And that's an arpeggio. It's that simple. L M H M as I like to call it or you can jumble it around. You can do high middle low middle high middle low middle stuff like that or maybe you could do high low middle low high low middle low high low middle low You could apply this technique to accompany yourself for any song which I guess is more like a ballad like an Adele song for instance will work. So high middle and change your arpeggio. Now if you're on a three four kind of a scenario like you can just play three notes of the arpeggio one two three one two like stuff like this one or if you're doing six eight what you can do is you could play three notes and then add the pinky to add up to the octave. So you can do things like stuff like this basically swaying music. So these are some basic arpeggios to get you to you know accompany yourself and moving forward another strategy to quickly accompany yourself on the piano is what I call as the ballad ratios. Now think of your hands as ratios. So if you take one is to four. This is how you go one is to four one two three four one two. That's pretty much it. So your two hands are colliding at the same time one two and then the other hand kind of goes a bit extra one two three four. So if you take a chord you're going to want to play the actual chord in the right hand as generally you play chords around middle C and above it not you know here sounds very muddy there so right hand two three can play it around here and the left hand you're going to probably play the bass or the root of the chord right but you need to play this pattern such that it's one two three four one two okay four one or anything it could be one two three one if it's a waltz birthday to you two three one stuff I don't know why I'm singing nursery rhymes in all my videos people have been complaining so need to figure that out okay so you take the one is to four again our favorite G minor chord now so check this out so you go two three four and just go four in the right and four in the left F major works for almost everything and to make the rhythm a bit more interesting you could kind of play it with an octave in your left but instead of kind of holding the left like that you can just take the thumb of the left and ghost it as I call it ghosting basically means playing that octave very very softly so you feel the pump you feel the energy you don't really hear it as like that that sounds a bit annoying if you ask me because it's overshadowing the actual performance so stuff like this one is to four I can do a few phrasings if you want like things like that you can always do by following the drummer and other musicians so that's the ballad pivot so any song you're trying to sing and play start with this see what ratio will serve my song is it a three by four in which case a one is to three could work is the four by four in which case a one is to four could work even a two is to four could work and so on and so forth so it's a nice way to like just get your accompaniment cracking you know on track okay so let's move on to the fourth strategy this is what I call a syncopation very much like how drums work so you're learning a song you want to figure out what pattern to play you know the chords but you want to figure out the pattern so think of how your low frequency and high frequencies are going to chat with each other so if you take let's say a D minor chord you're gonna play the root here and you'll probably play the chord there but don't collide them together unlike the earlier version ratios which is still good for ballads but here we're trying to make more dancy and more groovy kind of music so you instead of going colliding both chords together I can do things like left right right or maybe left left right left left right just literally calling that out this can evolve into like a nice bass line you can also inspire other musicians who you play with or if you're doing this with another singer you can do other things like if you know certain rhythms if you're reading a rhythm pattern let's say you're reading a song clave which is a very common salsa rhythm which goes something like this so if you want to adopt that on the piano why do when you could kind of break it down you know you're not going to have kick and snare in a drum kit scenario going kick and snare together it sounds horrible they would always have an interplay between the two drums of the drum kit or the same thing with the tabla you'll find him playing the bass one and the high one not together it's not going to be like that it's going to be one by one so same story here so if you're doing that cha cha cha cha cha maybe you could consider left right right left right left right right stuff like that you could also gain inspiration from the actual drummer who you're jamming with or the drums in the song you know you could put on a song and try to navigate through only what the drummer is doing you could use an app like Moises for instance which can isolate certain instruments and it's really cool you should check it out so you have the challenge is of course singing it but you have to see what you can do right go all tabla on the piano at some point as well so syncopation is something where you just tell yourself left and right need to chat with each other so how does a chat work the two hands should not talk at the same time otherwise it becomes a useless conversation so it's the first thing the left hand says something the right hand responds like sort of like a Q&A or just a chat an interaction between the bass and the treble so to speak right I hope that will work for you and I hope you enjoy that approach of accompanying yourself on the piano I have one final word of advice on how you can accompany yourself on the piano super easy that would be just start with the melody and harmonize it how you see fit so what I mean by that is if you take a G now that's a note this note will have a lot of chords which can serve it well and there they are G major G minor E flat major maybe C major C major C minor and then E minor you can do so many things with just G for example now what she's singing Adele in the song is she's not only doing this is the end she's doing this is the end but she eventually lands on that note so be aware of well in the melody you have two kinds of notes we have the landing and we have the connecting or the passing note so if you land on G that's going to end up being a note which you want to find a chord for or harmonize as we call it so this is the end you don't want to do this is you want to harmonize the word end or the end this is the end so you choose a chord for that and as it turns out they use three chords for that this is the end G minor E flat major C major and Adele takes a break because she doesn't need to sing anything more there's a note G and the composer has just played three chords for the price of just one G this is the end you have so many examples like this you know where the melody is probably you don't even know what came first it's like a chicken and egg scenario whether the tune came first or the chords came first and sometimes I ask some musician friends you know how did you write that song and some of them actually don't know so maybe when you write a good song it's that chicken and egg thing which is happening you think of the melody then the chord then you think of a chord and then the chord gives you a melody things like that so just off the top if we just build some music that's B minor G minor C that's a D7 E minor what chord to do then what's the chord maybe that stay with the same note la la la stay with the same note la la la E major a glamorous way to eventually come back to A you can also make music which is not very diatonic it can be just music which just has a note there and a chord which supports it and you don't know where it will go it becomes a very adventurous way to write stuff so that's an idea I have for you not only to you know accompany yourself but also to compose and rearrange songs and make it about the melody if you're trying to work on your chords because accompaniment needs chords and it needs a rhythm pattern so let's just recap all the five approaches towards piano accompaniment which I think you can definitely make some use of and let me know what you think as well in the comments whenever you get towards playing some of these patterns so we first looked at fifth chords with basically a bass movement la la la da da da da da da da then we looked at building basic arpeggios three six then we looked at our ballad style which is based on ratios one two three four one in this case one is to four left hand one and right hand four times then we looked at syncopation where you have a groove in your mind like and figure out a way to kind of execute it on the piano and last but not least look at it as an adventurous process where you have the melody as the pivot or the the focal point figure out the landing notes of the melody and then associate chords with it using a variety of strategies like one step would be just write down the available chords of the scale you're in and just experiment just see which chord works fine and when you have to choose the chord and when you have to find the chord for a song you're also motivated to playing it a lot better than when you're just reading it off a chart that's something I like to do very often when I learn songs or accompany songs try to figure it out on your own use your ears use your logic use your brain understand why that chord is being played in the first place what is it doing to the the song right right guys so that's about it these are five I hope super easy ways to accompany yourself or any of your friends or bandmates on the piano and maybe you could use these even in a recording studio you could use this in a band setting I hope you can use some of these concepts on stage as well if you're a singer-songwriter hopefully it helps you to make some music you know as a singer-songwriter there are a lot of polyphonic instruments out there but almost all these instruments the guitar the piano the banjo and what not will always look at standard patterns which we can cling on to while we are focusing on sort of the bigger picture which is composing a melody writing the lyrics putting it all together and so on right hope this lesson was useful continue to support the channel thanks a ton for watching don't forget to hit the like button if you like the video leave us a comment with something you'd like to learn in the future and hit the subscribe that'll be very helpful there's a bell also for regular notifications thanks a ton this is Jason


I, too, honour the first Australians whose people we celebrate, whose culture we own, as the oldest continuing culture in human history. Professor Vic Colton, to Dustin Ahamad, CEO of Reconciliation Australia. Members of the board of the National Policy and National Apology Foundation of Indigenous Australia. We're here with us this evening. Pat Turner, Jackie Huggins, Tim Goodwood for YouTube. And to all the distinguished guests here present. It's very difficult, all these years on, to sit and to watch such a beautiful rendition of archaeology science. Thank you very much for those who have come. It was truly beautiful. It is impossible to sit in an audience and to hear that song perform without being moved to the core of your being. Impossible. I'm always taken by historical photographs, whether it's in the Harbour Club in New York, or CPU photographs of Indigenous peoples in our country. Australia over generations and over centuries now. To look and do each of those faces of those small children and recognise that each of them is an extraordinary story. Each of them. They are not Aboriginal people. They are individual Aboriginal persons. And if you reflect for a moment on the pictures you saw of the earliest CPU photographs in the series, just of that very tiny Aboriginal girl perhaps three or four years old. A picture which looked at least a hundred years old. And simply the look in the comprehending of the horror being inflicted or about to be inflicted on it. So if there is still any hardness of heart in this country, it's time we opened our hearts afresh to look into the eyes and through the eyes to the deep soul of the tens of thousands of Indigenous Australians. Hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Australians over the centuries of European settlement whose lives were radically wounded. Seven years ago I said to the Parliament of Australia that there comes a time in the history of nations that in order to embrace fully their future they must fully reconcile with their past. Much has happened over the last seven years in our long journey of national reconciliation. Much has not. And much, much more needs to be done. And there are seven is a number of truly biblical significance both in the biblical narratives of creation and destruction. Perhaps it is time to reflect on our progress, our prospects and perhaps our regrets in this difficult but necessary journey we call reconciliation. We should begin by reminding ourselves why reconciliation is not optional for Australia but necessary for our nation's future. We should reflect on countries around the world where the reconciliation of their peoples has not been achieved. I do not believe that we Australians want our children to grow up in divided societies. Divided societies do not happen by accident. They exist right around the world. They happen because political processes and economic forces allow them to happen and the consequences are ugly. And as Australians whatever our political affiliations we are also challenged and I hope animated by a deep inalienable irreducible sense of justice. Justice or whatever term we may use to describe it in the Australian vernacular is embedded in our national DNA. It is this deep sense of justice that calls us to reconciliation. That calls us towards reconciliation. And it calls us towards completing reconciliation. Completing reconciliation. Reconciliation is not just a dignity, it is a destination for Australia. If we were to deny ourselves the prospect of reconciliation we would be denying these essential elements of our national spirit and character. We would also be denying these essential angles of our human nature. Just as we would be failing to put to death some of the demons of our uncomfortable past in our dealings with Indigenous Australians. And as a people we would not be complete. There is another reason why reconciliation is important and it's a more practical one. Unless and until our processes of reconciliation draw towards completion and inclusion, as I believe they must, we are also failing to unleash the full human economic and political potential nearly half a million of our Indigenous brothers and sisters. That is a loss to the nation, it is a loss to Indigenous peoples themselves, it is a loss to us all. Reconciliation is easy to say. It is hard to do. It is also difficult, as you said, to define. We seem to know what reconciliation is when we sense its absence. We don't seem to talk much about a reconciled society. This is worth thinking about more deeply. When we talk about reconciliation, are we therefore talking about a state of mind or a set of social attitudes? Are we talking about a framework of policy and law? Are we talking about measurable social and economic conditions? Of course, I believe we're talking about all of the above. The essence of reconciliation is the acceptance that a deep wrong has been committed by one person against another, by one group against another, almost distantly by one race against another. Acceptance that a wrong has been committed is hard because of all the frailty of human nature, such acceptance can take a very long time. The world today is full of excuses as to why such wrongs were never seen as wrongs in the past and why we should not indulge ourselves in retrospective ethics. This leads to very dangerous ground indeed. Human pride is a profound and powerful immersion. Human pride, particularly embedded in entrenched historical narratives about one people's prejudices against another, can be lethal. If acceptance that is the first step in reconciliation, then an apology for past wrongs is the next. And of course, such an apology must be accepted. This again can be a hard thing to do. In the offering of an apology, if it is genuinely met, weasel words are to be avoided.  Half measures can be spotted at a thousand places. Escape clauses litter our political landscape. In our quest for reconciliation, we must be particularly mindful of the absolute simplicity of the biblical injunction of let your yes be yes and let your no be no. There is also the usual cautionary advice that we shouldn't be held responsible for the sins of our fathers. My response to this has long been that if we are willing to appropriate the positive dimensions of our heritage as the objects of contemporary pride, either personal or national, but it follows that we cannot behave as punctious pilot on the darker actions of our committed past. The acceptance of an apology for past wrongs is much harder than its rendering. An apology, after all, is in large part still a matter of words. For those who have been profoundly wronged, apologies can be seen as trivialising the depth of the damage and the hurt that has been done. Words, not the standard of the obstacles constructed by our egos in actually articulating them, are, in the end, simple. But for reconciliation to be something more than words, an apology must be received as well. And if you have experienced the multiple indignities of Indigenous Australia over the decades and over the centuries, this is by far the harder road. There is a further step as well. Beyond the simple words of an apology, actions must be taken to bring about a level of restorative justice, either for the individuals who have been wronged or in the case of Indigenous Australians or Indigenous Australia as a whole. The national apology delivered seven years ago was incomplete. Actions have to match our words, and that can mean, and must be, putting your money where your mouth is. Some Indigenous leaders pointed to the time and since then to the absence of restorative payments to surviving members of the Stalin generation, separate to the national programme of closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians at large. There is merit in the criticism. During the last national elections, I undertook to revisit this if we return to office. That proved not to be the case. There is, of course, a remaining part of our road to reconciliation, which is yet to be travelled at all. This lies in the process of formal political recognition of those who have been wronged and who should never have been wronged. In mourning the race-based murder of a group of African-Americans of prayer at an Atlanta church early this year, President Obama observed recognition precedes justice. It is as if recognition, formal recognition, public recognition, political recognition, and in the context of the current Australian debate, constitutional recognition, completes a process which commenced with a much earlier societal acceptance that Greg wrongs had been committed. Reconciliation, particularly when it applies to the deepest sensitivities of race, is, therefore, the most difficult and, at times, the most volatile of processes. In reality, reconciliation is a complex of changing social attitudes of emerging equalities and of policies and laws that both advance and, in time, recognise the same. In Australia, while we have made some progress along this path, there is still much distance and many obstacles that lie ahead. So what of reconciliation in Australia? It's a long, long time since the events of 1967. I remember clearly attending the commemorative and celebratory events of 2007, at Old Parliament House on the 50th anniversary of that landmark referendum. It was humbling to meet those who mobilised a nation at a time when racial stereotypes about our Indigenous brothers and sisters had changed a little more since the early years of European settlement. Remember, in 1967, this was a time when the stolen generations were still being stolen. I also remember, perhaps my earliest political memory, walking into a polling booth with my father, a member of the country party, at the Amundi State Primary School and Conservative rural Queensland in 1967, to my surprise, my absolute surprise, voted yes. At least, that's what he told me. The truth is, much of the hard work on the road to reconciliation has been done by those who have come before us. They deserve our admiration, each and every one of them. Australians, both black and white, who have led the charge against the prevailing winds of Syrian prejudice. These were bare-knuckled days compared to the discourse in which we are now engaged. We should therefore honour the contributions of those who have brought us thus far. We should be humbled by them as we consider our current travels on constitutional recognition. The veterans of the 67 referendum of the earliest land rights legislation, including Dunston, Vingyari and Whitlam, of Keating and Redford, of Lowitcher, and Marlborough and Wick, and then the Bringing Home Report on the stolen generations. So many people in this room have played a part in that. We all play our part, but we are all small in the wide sweep of history. We in Australia have indeed come a long way on this roadless travel that we call reconciliation. At some point along this road, and it is difficult to identify when, we as an Australian people began to accept that a great wrong had been done to our Indigenous brothers and sisters, and that we, white folks, were responsible. It became absolutely impossible to ignore, to sweep discreetly under the carpet, even less to laugh off the conditions to which Aboriginal Australians had been reduced in the racist jokes that polluted our private and sometimes public conversations. We had, rightly as Australians, become uncomfortable in the depths of our national conscience when you something had to be done without really knowing what to be done. With the work of the Bringing Home Report, coupled with that of the National Sorry Day Committee, Reconciliation Australia as well, we began to realise the time for formal national apology had come. I gave this undertaking to the Australian people in the 2007 election, and the apology became the first parliamentary act of my government. It is for the nation to judge what impact the apology has had on the deeper question of reconciliation over time. For me, the miracle of the apology was not that it was delivered. The miracle of the apology was that it was acknowledged, accepted, and I believe received by our Indigenous brothers and sisters. Something, it seemed, had finally melted in the hearts of Australians, black and white. It was as if we were able to see one another through new eyes or at least through a different lens. Compassion, at least for a season, replaced prejudice, mutual recrimination and condemnation. Perhaps these were the tentative beginnings of deeper attitudinal change. As part of the apology, closing the gap was intended to deal with an entirely different dimension of any enduring reconciliation. It sought practical, funded, measurable programs to reduce and in time remove the structural disadvantages that divided Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. These focused on health, on education, on housing and employment, and the appalling gap and the continuing obscenity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. These were not intended as normal aspirations. They articulated concrete goals within concrete timelines. They were anchored in funded programs reflected in Australia's first national agreement between the Commonwealth and the States on closing the gap signed in Darwin in December of 2008, and involving both government and non-government sectors. Most critically, the political parties committed to an annual report to the parliament by the Prime Minister of the day on progress and any regress in achieving the policy objectives outlined in the closing the gap strategy. So far, we have had seven such reports. After seven years, the emerging picture is mixed with a number of measurable improvements in education, health, housing and employment, but with real problems in areas such as literacy and numeracy. The critical factor in all this is that we must have consistent, accurate data. I believe we now have the maturity as a national political community to confront the reality of Indigenous disadvantage rather than sweeping uncomfortable data under the carpet or worse, ceasing to collect, collate or publish it. All future Australian governments should be held accountable against the policy objectives of closing the gap and the data which therefore keeps us honest. If the data tells us we are failing in particular areas, let's have the imagination without political recrimination to do things differently. For the future of closing the gap, it should be a dynamic, not a static process. It should not be regarded as a closed canon. Since leaving office, I have recommended we add new measures concerning Indigenous access to higher education. I have also argued that we must now add new measures concerning Aboriginal incarceration rates around Australia, given the obscenity of the numbers we are now seeing. Earlier this year on the anniversary of the Upolyte, I spoke two of the dangers of creating a second stolen generation, arising from the alarming separation rates of Aboriginal children from their family and kinship groups, while fully recognising the alarming rates of domestic violence and child abuse. As a nation, we must not shrink from any of these challenges. We must embrace them together and with the great Australian characteristics of courage, of pragmatism and resolve. In our great mission of national reconciliation, the national apology made a contribution. I believe it has helped change social attitudes. I believe it has produced some progress in reducing Indigenous disadvantage. But I also believe it is one part, but one part, of our greater effort to bend the arc of history. So what a constitutional recognition. The constitutional recognition of the first Australians is the next stage of our long national journey towards reconciliation. There has been a long national conversation on this over many, many years. It was among the key resolutions, for example, of the 2020 summit I convened in a month of the National Apology in 2008. It became then a core commitment of the newly elected government. The journey, therefore, on constitutional recognition has indeed been a long one, in fact, far too long. The importance of constitutional recognition lies in both simple concepts of respect and simple recognitions of reality. Respect for the unique status of this, the oldest continuing culture in our human family, whose continuity reaches back to deepest antiquity, connecting us to the Indigenous mysteries of creation. Reality, because those of us who have come uninvited to this continent from various communities of the world to live and have our being in this vast continent, represent but a recent blip against the 50 millennia or more of continuing Indigenous occupation. With the advantage of historical hindsight and contemporary reflection, there is a stunning arrogance in the language of our constitution. Of course, this was consistent with the age. We're all familiar with the doctrine of Terinolius, not to be overturned by the Australian courts, for almost one century. But reflecting these grandly imperial assumptions of the age, our founding legal document saw Indigenous peoples almost exclusively seen as a problem. Not as the people whose prior occupancy, Terra Australis in Cognita, was in any way worthy of respect. Constitutional change must set these wrongs to right. Consistent with these changing realities, the formal repeal of the provisions of our constitution that are discriminatory law and condescending in nature is essential. These do not belong in any civilised constitution of the 21st century. No other people within our Australian family, least of all the first Australians, would or should tolerate the language of race and our founding colour. This brings us to a further and more profound change, the scope of which lies beyond these legal realities. There is a sense which we should not dismiss lightly, that by finally recognising Indigenous Australians in our shared constitution and by removing its antiquated discriminations, we are also reflecting underlying changes in Australian social attitudes towards indigeneity, which in turn gives rise to further changes in an increasingly reconciled society. In my mind, the ultimate objective is to cause all Australians to have about them a spontaneous pride in Indigenous Australians. That has not been the case so far. It is, however, now becoming the case. We see this already in the international prestige attached to Indigenous art, design and dance. I believe this appreciation will progressively deepen and broaden to new areas of Indigenous creativity, professional engagement and enterprise. This trends it's comfortably with and in my view is furthered by the impending reality we both call constitutional recognition. I'm aware, painfully aware, of the content, complexity and texture of the current discussion within Indigenous Australia and between Indigenous Australians and the rest of the Australian community on the desired content of constitutional amendments to be put to the Australian people. Hard questions have been raised and harsh things have from time to time to be said. I'm aware of the discussion over preamble paragraphs versus explicit Indigenous recognition at the beginning of the Constitution proper. These phrases should, in my view, reflect the fact of our indelible Indigenous heritage, that this is a living heritage and therefore an equally indelible part of our common Australian future. And given the findings of our courts in recent decades, these acknowledgments should also include the enduring connection between Indigenous Australians and the land and waters of our shared content. The poetry of these phrases should also be memorable, not drowned by a bloody committee. So that these two become etched in the minds and the souls of all Australians of the future. A document of which we can be proud. The debate over the repeal of Section 25 of the Constitution on the potential exclusion of people from electoral participation on the grounds of race is clear-cut and uncontested. Section 25 must be repealed. Section 25 provides that if by the law of any state or person or any race are disqualified from voting in elections for the numerous House of Parliament of the state, then in reckoning the number of people of the state or of the Commonwealth persons of that race risen in that state shall not be counted. I'll read that again if you like. It is self-evident that Section 25 must go. The other explicit reference to race in the Constitution is in Section 51-26. This empowers the Commonwealth to make laws for the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws, unquote. The debate here is how to amend this provision in a manner that preserves the Commonwealth's power to legislate the specific purposes of Indigenous Australia and to their advantage, with that explicit recourse to a race power. It then follows the equally contentious debate over the inclusion or otherwise of the new and explicit constitutional provision that would effectively import the relevant provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 into the Constitution proper. This warning, the argument of its proponents, prevent any future Parliament from legislating in a manner injurious to the interests of Indigenous Australia. There was even further debate over the desirability of an Indigenous advisory body to advise future Governments and Parliaments on the impact of proposed legislation on the interests of Indigenous Australians, and if so, whether such an advisory body should be anchored in the Constitution or in legislation. I do not believe it is productive for me to engage in the debate over these most contentious questions of constitutional reform. That, in my view, is probably the province of Indigenous Australia. Again, their engagement in turn with the Australian political process. I am happily no longer part of that process. But I wouldn't. Mindful of my direct experience in the preparation of the National Apology, caution against the rigidities of a debate that sees the perfect triumph over the good only to see the perfect defeated and the good defeated and the potential political ugliness of a divisive referendum. In 2008, a Government consulted widely on the content of the Apology. I received conflicting advice all across the Government and beyond. In the end, I made a call and wrote myself. Quite efficiently. The Apology was far from perfect, but we did manage to carry the nation with us. We also, in an even greater miracle, were able to carry with us Majesty's loyal opposition. Had we failed to do so, the Apology and all that came as a consequence of it along the long and torturous road to reconciliation, including the practical measures containing closing the gap, would have been rendered null and void with inevitable twists and turns of the political cycle. The degree of political difficulty with the referendum to amend the Constitution is much greater. The vicissitudes of the House, in which the Government commands a majority, is little compared with the vicissitudes of public opinion, even when a politically effective no-pace is mounted, irrespective of whether it is formally endorsed by one political party or another. The race demon has not yet been fully exercised or expunged from our national soul. All this is by way of saying that obtaining bipartisan political support is essential to seeing constitutional change through the hazardous waters of a referendum. The failure to obtain such support would most likely result in the proposal for a referendum dying before it was actually put to the people. Or if it was, we would run the greater risk of a divisive national debate on race which would deeply scar the as-yet fragile tissue we have in Australia in this living process we call reconciliation. Imagine, too, the reaction around the world. It went to the people on a divided or at least divisive proposition which saw the proposition voted down. The world concluded that the ghosts of white Australia had somehow returned in a different form. We should be cautious about any such risk. Given how far we have come so far. I respect the views of my Indigenous brothers and sisters who have worn against constitutional nominalism, the trivialization of symbols and the triumph of symbols over substance. I therefore do not argue for a minimalist approach. I believe the new Prime Minister has an open mind on these questions. And unless I am proven to be wrong, has a deep empathy for Indigenous Australians. Furthermore, the previous Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have also sought to improve consensus in the recent roundtable they convened at Kiribati. What I argue for myself is for the most expansive consensus possible to be forged among Indigenous Australians and between them in the Australian political process. And, most critically, while the national climate is still right to get on with it and to do it. I genuinely fear the loss of national political momentum on constitutional recognition. The Australian public want it. Let us not degenerate into a public button fight. And let's remember that an agreed form of constitutional recognition provides a better starting point for ultimate justice than the present constitutional silence. Even what some might call symbolic constitutional change can usher in a further era of substantive policy change, changing the way we do business when governments and parliaments come to consider the distinctive needs and entitlements of Indigenous Australians in the future. There is a sense that each stage of this reconciliation process builds on the previous. It creates momentum that's capable of further renewing momentum. There will be an election next year.  A constitutional convention that needs to be convened in 2007 is not far away. We should be very wary of the risks of political dissipation as other priorities emerge, whereas the political process concludes that consensus on recognition is being too politically difficult or simply impossible. We should remember what one writer has said of such circumstances that a tide in the affairs of men when taken at the flood leads on the fortune omitted all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea we are now at the flood and we must take the current when it serves or lose our ventures. Let us not miss this tide but us grasp this opportunity to take this difficult national journey of reconciliation with the first Australians to the next stage and let us just for a moment lift up our eyes from the trenches of political battle and gaze for a moment upon the mountains unleashing for a moment our imagination on the new possibilities that might just by beyond constitutional recognition towards an Australia that is utterly, wonderfully, magnificently, racially, blind, colour blind. Where Australians are indeed judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. That I believe is the Australia we desire in all our hearts. Reconciliation has indeed been a long journey for this nation of ours Australia. For Indigenous Australians this journey has been the longest of all. It is a journey in which we all have a stake in which we all have a responsibility as women and men of good will and in which we all have our path to play be it large or small. Mine has been the apology. There's also been with closing the gap and of course I stand ready to do that as I long believe it is right to stand on the side of Indigenous Australia to be in their corner rather than to have them stand alone. To this end I have established the National Apology Foundation for Indigenous Australians. And as we speak I'm advised the Parliament is this week passing legislation to afford this foundation the National Apology Foundation for Indigenous Australians DGR status for which I'm thankful to the previous treasurer and his successor. The foundation has as its aim perpetuating the spirit, the objects and the substance The Board of the National Apology Foundation has agreed that one of its major priorities over time is to raise an endowment for a permanent chair here at the Australian National University dedicated to the explicit analysis of the policies necessary for and the core data associated with closing the gap. To be blunt whoever the future Government of Australia happens to be we want to keep the bastards honest. We want to ensure the necessary data is collected to measure our success or our failure in bridging the intergenerational gap of entrenched Indigenous disadvantage. This mission must continue beyond the passing seasons we call politics. The Chancellor of the University a quiet man you may know him tells me such a chair will lead a $5 million endowment. I'm tempted to say to paraphrase the great work of Australian cinematography and the array of philosophers portrayed within it that they've got to be dreaming. We will talk about the numbers and of course the university's own contribution won't we meet? Today however, I wish to announce I'll be making an initial personal contribution of $100,000 to the foundation to begin its fundraising campaign now. As the song says from little things big things grow it's also far easier in my experience to eyeball somebody and ask them for money when you've stuck your hand in your own pocket. Indigenous reconciliation is a challenge not for just for Australia is a challenge for the 350 million Indigenous peoples of the world and the settler communities in which they live. Indigenous peoples around the world are among the most poor and oppressed as in Australia throughout history they too have been pushed to the margins. The sad reality is that many countries have simply given up on the universal moral challenge of reconciling with their Indigenous peoples. Sometimes this is the product of indifference sometimes it's a question of individual inconvenience and others it's a question of what I would sense is learned hopelessness but because Indigenous disadvantage has become so entrenched simply nothing works there are elements of all these in the countries I've looked at around the world that we in Australia yield to none of these that we in Australia instead as we attend to our own real challenges in achieving reconciliation in our own land encourage others also around the world to do the same and so too together indeed bend the arc of history. Ladies and gentlemen if you're not stimulated about reconciliation and constitutional recognition before this lecture you ought to be now. Mr Rudd has kindly agreed to take some questions so if you've got a question put up your hand wait for your microphone and please be reminded of the nature of the event and the need to be respectful someone will be marching around. So yes I mean I was just a little surprised Land Rights didn't play a part in your description of reconciliation. What I said was that Land Rights was part of the process I referred directly to Whitlam to Binyari to Dunstan that whole period from Marlowe to Wick. What I would say is that reconciliation in fact from the earliest time when the national conscience was disturbed around the time of 67 I think through until the president has seen one wave after the another of engagement with bringing some justice to Indigenous people and Land Rights frankly was at its core. I follow those processes by opinion which is why it was the Wic and those who did the earlier legislative efforts on those questions as well. My further point though about reconciliation is what I sense from Indigenous Australia is there's kind of a sense of an outrage and exhaustion as I speak to my own Indigenous friends about when it is we're going to finally put all this ahead. A whole business of reconciliation and get on with it. Get on with the national future together. It ain't rocket science when you think about it. Social attitudes are hard to change but it ain't rocket science to get on with the core bits which make up a full digs or puzzle. Sometimes what I despair about is someone who's engaged in this as a white father who was for a while Prime Minister is that when I hear the language that reconciliation is a process reconciliation is a journey I become very impatient for my Indigenous brothers and sisters. Reconciliation is a destination. Reconciliation is where we want to be as a nation. Reconciliation is the character of the society we wish to be a fully reconciled Australia and if we think that's a losery then we defeat him from the first step. So we start to need to unleash our national imagination as to what a reconciled Australia actually looks like.  Indigenous people are fully empowered and fully participating but when I look at an Indigenous person and I no longer see the element of colour I just see another human being. I think that's a conversation we need to start in order to get people to say well let's get to that and get through these apparently impossible steps on the way it requires a political imagination it requires national imagination but it's dual. What I'm encouraged by is the attitude of my kids generation that my kids have grown up in Queensland People's Republic of Queensland Over the years they've been a little conservative from time to time I've tried to be the Labour Prime Minister from Queensland a few degrees of difficulty there but anyway what I'm encouraged by when I meet these kids is that I find in my kids generation of kids a group who are genuinely colour blind and race blind I cannot say at a university that I have all kids in the country I can't but you know there's something of a trend here and our jobs turn that unfolding social reality into a broader picture which says that's the Australia we're going to be If we think it's hopeless and frankly everything else we do in the meantime becomes mechanical almost something that you've got to do I'm all for imagining the future as it can be and then get them there That's what I'm about Land Rights Department Hi my name's Sarah Burke Where are you from Sarah Burke? I'm from Canberra actually Yeah, I'm visiting PhD students here What are you studying? I'm looking at Indigenous Health What I wanted to address was your point about being colour blind I was hoping when you were saying that you want an Australia that is a wonderful beautiful place I was hoping the next word was going to be diverse but it was kind of fine and I think I used to draw but adversity in my judgment is kind of inherent in the proposition My mind means that in my sense I mean this is Queensland Dialect that you simply enjoy the diversity and you're utterly unmindful of the fact that this person should be considered inherently different to you I understand what you're saying but I think also raising a generation of people who are colour blind ignores the lived reality of people of colour who do experience discrimination on that basis whether or not they're friends or family are colour blind Yeah I'd like to hear from our Indigenous brothers and sisters on that I mean having grown up in a community where we had one Indigenous family and I've had direct experience of what they had on the receiving end of that I remember it was quite a while ago I just... So you have heard from an Aboriginal sister? I didn't quite get you I am Aboriginal and I make that comment to you as an Aboriginal person? Sure but I'm not disputing that all I'm saying is I think we're having a discussion about the different interpretation of words when you say diversity I say yes and amen different parts of the world when I say colour blind what I mean is that people are not actually alienated by the sight of somebody who comes from somewhere different and they actually turn around and celebrate the diversity with them that's what I mean so maybe it's a question of language for the people Perhaps I have two more questions I just want to go on over Thank you very much for your excellent presentation My question is about the proposed National Human Rights Act that Father Frank Brennan won as the long champions of human rights and the rights of Indigenous Australians the former government abandoned the proposal for a national statutory Bill of Rights Queensland is currently having an inquiry and as an advocate of reconciliation are you fully supportive of a Bill of Rights for Queensland? Well as you know there's a difference between common state statutes in this area by the way my defence in response to all such questions is that I'm having many things but I'm not aware so I will defer partly on those questions but the reason that I among others including then Attorney General invited Frank Brennan to share that committee and do the work that he did on the desirability of the Human Rights Act for Australia was to advance the debate in very concrete terms. What would it look like? How would you go about doing it? What would be the questions that you put to people as you propose that change and I think that is still valuable work. Why I intrinsically as a matter of principle have long supported Bill of Rights? We cannot assume the current societal assumptions about what is acceptable and unacceptable based on common law traditions will pertain in fifty or a hundred years time that's what worries me and therefore the ability to return always to a founding couple which makes explicit constitutionally what those rights are is by far the desired course of action knowing something about how people campaign negatively in this country when you propose a radical change such as this, I think the first step was actually to put all the relevant issues on the table and Frank's report did that very well so in direct response to your question about Queensland which as you know the state involves a different set of considerations of course I fully support that. Last question, watch this for the camera it's time to make Good evening Mr. Rudd, my name is David Rudd I'd like to take up the statement you made about not rewriting the constitution by committee and I certainly agree with your observation about committee aesthetics my question is do we have the talent as a nation to rewrite the constitution? Well remember when we were talking about constitutional recognition we're not taking the document apart in total and we're talking about the subtraction and addition of causes so let me pose a question to you all render to me one memorable phrase in their existing constitution have you got one? any lawyers here, constitutional lawyers? have you got one? yeah, I risked my case I risked my case it just ain't nothing there most of us can quote bits of the Bill of Rights some of us can quote parts of the Declaration of Independence the United States etc we've had a poverty of national poetry now poetry doesn't solve all the problems there must be grounded in fact and in the conclusions you make in policy about what the change is to be but it's not beyond our national wit and wisdom and creativity from our indigenous brothers and sisters to come forward with language and livens the soul and becomes part of the national poetry in the country that's part of what we're looking for do we have such people? it's rooms full of bright people far brighter than me when it comes to creative work so yes I'm sure there are folks around so what I'm saying in that cryptic remark was that let's get the policy right on the four or five or maybe even two or three contentious policy questions which currently inform the constitutional debate on constitutional recognition let's get that done quickly so we can get on with the business of getting it done and then having done so ensure that what we cry is not an unusual surge of bureaucraties of which we the political class are faced across the world so yes let's mock people around thank you that concludes the general questions session


Russian Mi-8 helicopter with the entire crew flew to Ukraine and crew surrendered. Russian Telegram channel by the name FIGRABOMA tells a story about a Russian Mi-8 helicopter that got lost and apparently landed on the Ukrainian airfield in Poltava a few weeks back. It is noted that once they tried to take off again they were shot. In its other post FIGRABOMA says that the crew for some reason lost their bearings and crossed the ribbon. Perhaps there was a radio play on the part of the Ukrainians perhaps a navigation failure and the Deshmund GPS's have not been working there for a long time. Attempts to restore orientation ended in vain. We saw the airfield from the air and landed on it. The airfield turned out to be the Poltava Ukraine airfield. Realizing where they landed they made an attempt to take off but were shot in a helicopter on the ground. FIGRABOMA said according to other information the Russian Mi-8 helicopter with the entire crew flew to Ukraine and probably deliberately gave the combat vehicle to the armed forces of Ukraine. It is said that this story promises to become legendary according to the Russian channel two weeks ago a Russian Mi-8 flew to the Poltava airfield. The Russian blogger called it a failure of navigation although in fact it is obvious that there can be no failure. Poltava is 300 kilometers from the front line you cannot accidentally fly there only intentionally. The helicopter flies over the ground along a clear visible landmark such a long-distance route requires preparation. High-ranked sources in the defense intelligence of Ukraine said to Ukraine skupravda media outlet that recently an Mi-8 helicopter of the Russian armed forces ended up in Ukraine as a result of a long-term special operation of the main intelligence directorate of the armed forces of Ukraine. This happened as a result of a special operation of the main intelligence directorate which lasted for more than six months. Ukrainian intelligence lured a pilot of an Mi-8 AMTSH to Ukraine. The helicopter crew made a flight between two air bases and transported parts for SU-27 and SU-30 fighter jets along with the pilot on board were two crew members who did not know where the helicopter was actually flying. The Mi-8 landed in Kharkiv Oblast.