Let us take our seats. I'm Charlie Allen. I'm the senior intelligence advisor to intelligence and national security alliance. And it's my great pleasure to introduce the next panel. The intelligence community receives oversight primarily from two select committees, as well as its authorizations for funding, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. A close relationship between the director of national intelligence and the IC agencies, and these oversight committees is imperative if the United States is to counter threats to its national security. It is our privilege to have two distinguished members from those committees with us here today. Chairman Mike Rogers represents the people in the 8th district of Michigan and the U.S. House of Representatives, who's done this since 2000. His experiences as U.S. Army officer and FBI agent, a businessman and a representative of the Michigan State Senate, and U.S. Congress provides him with a unique perspective on the security needs of our nation and the role of the intelligence community. He has worked hard to strengthen the intelligence community and is noted in Congress for his efforts to fight global terrorism. The Speaker of the House appointed Congressman Rogers to the chair of the HIPSE for the 112th Congress because of his experience and his reputation on national security issues. I think we can safely say that Chairman Rogers always brings great energy and passion to this position. We're also honored to have with us Senator Mark Warner, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2008 to represent the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. His experience and record as a successful businessman and as governor of Virginia prepared him well for the challenges of Washington. He has quickly established himself as a national leader on fiscal and security issues and one who is willing to reach across the aisle to find common sense solutions to the challenges facing our country. Senator Warner is an advocate for a strong intelligence community and recognizes that it faces some tough decisions in an era of budget austerity. He also has a good fortune to have a significant portion of the intelligence community actually located in Virginia. Our moderator for this discussion is Kim Dozier from the Associated Press. Kim is a successful, highly acclaimed journalist who has won countless awards for excellence in reporting. She has covered counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and now the intelligence community. While covering the war in Iraq in 2006, she was critically wounded in a bomb attack in Baghdad that killed an American soldier, an Iraqi translator, and two of her media colleagues. Her book, Breathing Fire, Fighting to Report and Survive the War in Iraq, is a courageous and deeply moving account of her recovery. She, as you might expect, is a staunch advocate and supporter of combat-injured soldiers and their families. Ladies and gentlemen, over to the panel. Thank you, Charlie, for that introduction, and I want to thank INSA and CSIS for giving me this opportunity to grill you guys on stage about 9-11, the 10th anniversary, and what comes next. Now I'm gonna start with a freebie. Gonna ask you both to give me a report card. What have we done well? Where are we lagging? Are Americans safer than they were 10 years ago? Chairman, start with you. Thank you. I'm shy in Dumeur, Kim Dozier. I'd like to see that person come out maybe today a little bit on stage. And I mean that in the best possible way. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here. And I would argue we are safer, but it's maybe not for the reasons we think. Terrorism has changed as much as the intelligence community has changed in the last 10 years. We have clearly been much more aggressive about putting analysts forward and integrating analysts into the action side of intelligence in a way that we had never done before. We've applied technology to our intelligence profession in a way that had not been done before. You mean drones, but you won't say it. We've applied technology in a way that we have not done before. And a whole aspect of it, how we analyze information, how we collect information, and then get the right kinds of information to the right kind of analysts, all of that has happened over the last 10 years. And because of that, and because I think America is more aware of the threat, we are in fact safer. And we've done a great job on the core of Al-Qaeda, but there is plenty of work left. And again, we're safe not because the problem has gone away. We are safe because we have risen to the challenge in the community to defeat it. And our awareness is much more, I think, acute than it was 10 years ago. Senator Warner? Well, I would agree with Chairman Rogers on the overall frame. And let me first of all, acknowledge on the front end as the kind of new guy on the intel community, I'm still in that learning process. And I try to mention I am very glad that we've got a lot of that, the IC community and government contractor supporters in Virginia. I've tried to get out to see about a dozen of those agencies so far. So my perspective on how we have improved as much comes from my tenure as governor is my activities at the federal level. I've seen in Virginia where we were first state to set up a cabinet level, Homeland Security Advisor, where we were one of the first states to set up a fusion center, where we worked closely with our private sector infrastructure to try to do appropriate mapping. So I would say we've made progress there. I've also seen where we've not quite made as much progress. I remember I think most every governor's in the first few years after 9-11, I got sworn in three months after 9-11 when we had the initial flood of Homeland Security Dollars and every local fire department wanted their own hazmat unit no matter where they might be and still sorting through that process. I think we've done a bit better there but I think there's still work to be done in terms of how we distribute funds. At the same time I would argue we saw better, we've seen better information sharing on the domestic side but I'll still remember those 20 plus days when this whole region was terrorized by the snipers and for most of that timeframe the expectation or the sense was that this was not just some rogue-loan wolf but might have been a terrorist incident and I can assure you from someone who saw that up close and personal, there was still a lack of collaboration and coordination amongst law enforcement. I think again we've made progress. I would agree with the chairman on the international side that we, both the technology and analytics are much better. I think we do see new threats though. I think one of the biggest new challenges that we have by no means gotten right yet is the, are the challenges around cyber and as we kind of think through moving to the cloud and some of the other technology advances are we gonna have the intel side chasing the technology advances or are we gonna be able to get that kind of meshed as we move forward? I think that's very much an open question. Let's talk about tracking a terror suspect then versus now. They don't face Posse Comitatis. They don't face some of the border issues that we do when a terror suspect crosses from CIA territory into FBI territory, so to speak. How are we doing on that? And the larger issue is the intelligence when you put it into an all-source intelligence network, when you put it into some form of analysis and you've got that pot versus the pot back here. How are we doing on mixing and sorting that? I think we're doing better. It's not perfect. You know, one of the things about the FBI and CIA relationship, a lot of it after 9-11 was blamed on a cultural problem. And to some degree that's true, but the culture was bred through legal hurdles that were also in place. When you had grand jury testimony, even if it was very specific, it was almost impossible to take that grand jury testimony from an FBI case and transfer it to a CIA officer to use in any capability. So they had legal hurdles that I think fed the culture of the differences between the CIA and the FBI. Much of that is gone. You still have the personality differences that happen in any organization. I don't care what it is. That still happens, but it has diminished. And through good leadership, I think from both the agency and the FBI, they've been able to mitigate a lot of that. So now when you have somebody that you're, in your words, tracking, that may be trying to enter the United States, that flow of that information is much easier and it's much more seamless. And an analyst in the FBI or an agent in the FBI will have as much access to that information as a case officer or an analyst at Langley might have on that piece of information. I would simply add that I think that kind of physical collaboration at the National Counterterrorism Center is a step in that direction too to make sure that information is appropriately shared.  They all hang it out there on their various computer portals so somebody else can see it, but that there's a lot of overlap and that it's just too much to digest and there still remain walls to putting it all into some artificial intelligence system to sort it out. But I don't think that is a intel only problem. I think you could, I think one of the challenges as we kind of sort through the debt and deficit issues is the over-reporting over a number of policy goals and objectives that most government agencies have and this kind of sifting through this blizzard of information. Obviously it's even higher priority in the EIC to get it right, but this is a government-wide problem. I will say there are efforts underway on that particular front to find the right IT technology that will help sift through the information and one of the real problems today is the sheer volume of information to get through to get to the right place. And I think we are closer to that than we were even a year and a half ago and it will have some fits and starts but I think it will dramatically and exponentially increase the value of information that an analyst pulls down that allows them to come to the right conclusion either for targeting or policy formation or their conclusion on what their thoughts are on a particular region or a particular person. Are we six months away, a year away? So it's just since I've started covering this be a year and a half ago, I hear about it all the time and I wonder, okay guys, you've known about this for some time and I know there are computer systems out there, various different competing ones that could address it but every single system designer says to me, ah, but there are these legal issues that we can't put these pots of information together. Well, and there are, there is some of that and we're gonna get through it but I think you solve this in pieces and then we're gonna take the system. So it'll be more of a pilot project in a place that we know we can contain the legal issues in a certain set of information and then we will take that and extend it beyond that. It's not gonna be instantaneous and if you talk to any IT person, this is one of those million dollar problems to solve. It is difficult and you have to get the right qualifiers in the right place to have a good outcome and that is a huge challenge for programmers to get to that place. I think we're getting there. I think you'll see a pilot program, as I said, within the agencies where we can contain it and then we'll get to the sharing part later. Let me just, let me add one other thing here too. That, again, is the new guy, one of the concerns I've had is not only the question came you asked about how we make sure that the various agencies who collect the intel and share it appropriately, but I've had a real question. It's not been fully answered, but better than I expected about how the IC is starting to use more of the open source information. We have not only all of the various agencies that collect but then this huge open source issues with social networking and other tools that frankly didn't even exist three or four years ago in many cases. And some of the conversations I've had actually shows I think that the IC is further along on the open source issue than I expected them to be. That leads to the next question of what this means to Americans and their personal privacy. How are we doing on balancing that? A poll this week found that 54% of Americans still want the US to err on the side of protecting their personal privacy. What would be your message to them? Grow up or... This is the right way to guard our values by protecting their privacy. I mean, the premise of the question I think is wrong. I don't believe that you fundamentally have to sacrifice your civil liberties and still have full and robust collection of information. There are protections under the law. I have to say I thought the Patriot Act was the most mischaracterized and misunderstood piece of legislation I have ever seen. And when you would ask the people, including folks from the ACLU who's I'm sure intentions were pure, about show us the place where you say that your rights are violated and the Fourth Amendment protection is circumvented and they can't find it. They cannot find it, it is not there. So a lot of this was perception. Many of us, I took an oath to the Constitution, both as an FBI agent and as an Army officer and as a member of Congress to protect the Constitution. I think you can do that and still have a robust collection apparatus. I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. I would say, and yet my colleagues at the AP, Matapuzzo and Adam Goldman did a story on the NYPD's cooperation with the CIA. And one of the things that they do is look at communities where terrorists have come from in the past and targeted folks in those communities who've broken the law and asked them to inform. Does this disturb you? I think that there are, this is again an area where the notion that we're going to legislate some bright line on one side. I don't think you can get there. I do think that generally speaking, through a very challenging time, we've kind of got the balance right. I think the times I would drill down on whether that the poll that you cited was more about people having their civil liberties and competed in terms of government listening in or other type of things or whether it was a question of the kind of just changes in lifestyle based upon security concern. I saw some of the reference to the poll, but I wasn't sure what it was really measuring. This is a really important question, and I think the rhetoric in these cases can get ahead of what the details and the facts are of the case. I saw in the article that there was some cooperation with the CIA. They did have a former CIA employee working in the unit. That does not automatically denote that there was some collusion between the CIA and this particular intelligence unit. It means that they did employ someone who was formally employed by the CIA. They also had former FBI agents who had left the FBI also working in the unit. And this to me is critically important. I am adamantly opposed to racial profiling. I think it doesn't work, but there are things called criminal profiles that do work, and if you're going to catch an Irish mob bank robbery crew in Charleston, Boston, you're normally gonna show up at places where the Irish connection folks would hang out. I mean that's a, in the FBI we used to say that's a clue. That's a good place to start.   But that's a good place to start. And it doesn't mean you're targeting individuals, and I thought that language was pretty harsh. It does not mean that. Great example in another, you do a bank robbery. The first thing you do is canvas a neighbor. This is old fashioned police work. And you knock on the door and you ask Sally May, the neighbor, did you see anything? That person isn't targeted by law enforcement. They happen to be maybe a material witness, or maybe they have information. And the only way to do that is to show up. So some notion that they were targeting these groups because they thought everyone was a criminal, I think is absurd. And it would be an incredible waste of their time. But what they did do, is my understanding. And a thorough review of this is fine. I'm for that, I think it's a good idea. Is use that kind of criminal profiling to say, we have information on these five people, and here's where these five people are going and attending and socializing. And we better get a handle in trying to understand it because it's an intelligence-based investigation. Much like we do with organized crime or drug groups fill in the blank, you have those certain criminal profiles and their patterns of life will be very similar. So as an investigator, it's logical that you would try to find those patterns of life of people you know, doesn't mean everybody's there, is a bad person or guilty, but it sure means that's a good place to start to ask some questions. We've been talking about targeting the enemy here. Let's move to overseas. The evolution of how we have targeted terrorist networks over the past 10 years. You could say we started small scale with the special operations and CIA-led campaign in Afghanistan. Sorry, for those in the crowd who want me to flip that. CIA-led and special operations program in Afghanistan. We moved on to full-scale invasion, Iraq, much larger troop presence in Afghanistan. Now, it appears we're going the other way. What do you think is going to be the effective way to fight in the future? What do you think of the White House's counterterrorism strategy as it's been articulated, which seems to be a combination, special operations raids, intelligence covert operations on the ground, and perhaps what they call the white side of special operations, the Green Berets, training local forces, and now Marine special operations, even SEALs, training local forces, how to fight terrorists as well. Well, I would actually think we've seen this process, as you say, start small, go big. The jury is still out on whether the go big strategy has necessarily proven truly effective. I think when we're fighting a different kind of enemy that is not a nation state, you're going to need to use units trained for that, and some of the concerns about the militarization of the CIA and so forth. I think the changing nature of the enemy, some of that is, again, perhaps over politicized, over rot. So I think there is the White House's approach in an area that's still evolving, is a better direction now than it was when the notion that we could simply go in and go big against the terrorist network and not create the kind of residual almost recruitment efforts that we saw, for example, in Afghanistan or in Iraq, when it was so disruptive for the local population. So, you know, is it perfect? Absolutely not. But, and this is going to be something that is going to continue to evolve. And I do believe that this needs to be a fight that we continue to try to frame friends and allies as well to make this, not just America alone in these circumstances. I think there's a danger in politics for, especially in the gray area, and it's gray only because so much of it's classified and not transparent to the public, that the last big event that was successful becomes the strategy for your future. I think that is a dangerous place to be. You're talking about the raid against Osama bin Laden? Well, I mean, just by your statement of what you articulated the administration's policy to be. Well, you can tell me if you think I'm wrong, too. Well, in a way, I just wrong. There are, you should have every tool available to you in this fight. And every region of the world and every country and every terrorist group, and there will be new ones, and so you'll have al-Qaeda that has no nation state to worry about. You have a country like Iran that I think is a growing state sponsor of terrorism, and I think they're getting more bold and more brave in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and other places. And the kinds of thing that that brings to the fight on terror, and what it means to US security interests. And you're still going to have other terrorist elements and we should lay out the FARC is hurt but not gone. All of these groups have different strategies you need to lay at their feet.  And by the way, the President of the United States at that time, George W. Bush said, give them up or we're coming in. And they said, come on in, the water's fine. And so I don't know what other tactic you could have used and you can't just use special forces and CIA operations because one of them worked. It won't translate into every region of the country. So I think it's dangerous to say this is the new counterterrorism strategy for the United States. It should be a part of it, but we should also leave everything else on the table as well. The devil's advocate would say if we'd taken out Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's initial training camp at Karnak Farms, it could have headed off a lot of this. Woulda coulda shoulda. If we had gotten him in Africa, remember the 90s, we closed down wholesale CIA operations in Africa. He was operating in Africa. We didn't know it. Why didn't we know it? Because we didn't have any intelligence people there to tell us that he was there. And so if we hadn't cut in the 90s, we could have gotten Osama bin Laden in Africa and we wouldn't have this problem, right? I mean, we find ourselves in the fight that we're in, not the fight that we want to be in. And there's a lot of near misses along the way in that, that we're, I mean, Torah Bora would have been great if we were that close. If we'd have had him in Torah Bora, it would have been a different day. We didn't get him. And no military operation, I don't care if it's title 10 or title 50, goes exactly the way you planned it, including by the way, the UBL rate, didn't go exactly the way it was planned, right? That is the fundamental rule of these operations is, once you plan it, it probably won't look much like that when you're doing it. But there is, we need to leave all these tools, but the notion that there's not lessons learned from... Tools including full-scale invasion. Listen, I remember when the invasion of Afghanistan, it really was in that case at the start in, the world versus a rogue state. Unfortunately, it is through the process, and I've supported when we first went in, supported what the president has continued there. But we see ourselves, the coalition of the willing continuing to shrink down. And if we don't recognize a lesson from Iraq or a lesson from Afghanistan about how and when we use that full-scale invasion force in terms of what it means after you take out, the top echelon of the bad guys, what are you gonna do then? I think that has to be factored in as we go forward because these kind of conflicts are gonna continue to arise all around the world. Before we move on to this, pass a little questions. You mentioned the cuts in the 90s, and you have been a key participant on some of the budget committees on the top debates right now on how to reduce the deficit. So you're both at the center of this particular storm. You got another round of major cuts coming, aimed at the intelligence community as well as everyone else. How are you going to keep it from being like the cuts in the 90s? I mean, I know INSA did a paper called Smart Change where they said, don't just lop off 10% like you did last time. That led to things like hiring freezes that robbed of us new analysts, et cetera. So what's your magic solution? Well, my magic, there is no magic solution other than the fact that we've seen the IC budget basically in the last decade approximately doubled to about $80 billion top line. There has to be a recognition that that kind of rate of growth can't be sustained. I would argue, as Admiral Mullen has it, the single biggest threat to our country is not terrorism, but is this overhang of debt and deficit that will completely undermine our country's ability to stay the nation or the world's leading power. And I don't think anything can be left off the table. I do think the traditional political approach of let's just come in and lop a percentage here and there is a ridiculous way to run any enterprise of this size. I've had a number of meetings with DNI Clapper about the notion of can we, and it's harder in the IC, but can you look at performance? Can you look at metrics? Can you look at ways that don't just come in with a percentage cut but try to find savings? As somebody who, again, new to the community, as I try to sort through, at least on a top line, all of the various agencies, organizations, and overlap, and I know there needs to be, and the IC more than most areas, overlap to put those checks and balances, but we seem to have, in certain cases, overlap and extremists right now. And how do you make the office of the DNI not just another bureaucratic layer but really that place that helps sort through these issues? I think that is a real challenge, but I do think performance metrics, trying to ensure the way you can bring about operational efficiencies, that's gotta happen in every piece of government. We passed a little piece of legislation last year that nobody's ever heard of called the Gipper bill that actually requires every agency to only have two or three policy goals to eliminate certain reporting requirements, to identify the top-performing programs and the least-performing programs, first time ever you actually identify the least-performing programs. Now, within the realm, the IC, it's tougher to do those things, but the notion that because the community is secret and this information can't be shared, that it is somehow gonna be spared, some of the cuts I think is short-sighted. I just wanna, listen, we've just gone through this. There's the O12, Intelligence Authorization Bill will be voted on hopefully Friday this week in the house. So we have spent the last six to seven months painstakingly going over every line item. And I think any organization that grows that fast can get a little fat in a hurry. However, that being said, some of that was making up for the fact that we didn't have a presence in a continent like Africa that I felt met our national security interests. So we had to make up for some of that. We had to reconfigure the FBI went through major changes and a lot of it very expensive changes. So all of that I think had to happen. I do believe that the rate of growth, again, I think we all agree on that, is unsustainable. So what we did is we went through and we saw, and I don't think the DNI can do this, frankly. I don't think that the community can do this. I think the authorization committees have to do this. This is why we're there, why we have the clearance, why we get to see everything, and why we have to make these decisions. You're the bad guys. Well, I think we're the good guys at the end of the day, right? Thanks. We have found significant savings, but it won't fit that across the board percentage. It's not gonna fit that, but we have found significant savings by merging programs, merging services, merging things that will not impact the mission of the intelligence community to actually collect and protect the United States. So it is very comprehensive. It's the first time we went through line by line on the military intelligence program and the national intelligence program with a fine tooth comb. So I think the product, and it was a bipartisan vote in the committee. Matter of fact, when we made the agreement was a couple of weeks ago, Dutch Rupert Berger and I were in the basement of the intelligence committee. We shook hands on the deal and five minutes later the whole building started shaking. I thought we broke something pretty bad. Thank God it was the earthquake. But once that I think gets rolled out, it will allow the DNI to help manage those changes because some of those changes are gonna be hard. You have to give up a little bit. And merging services and training facilities and other things, some of that's gonna be hard, but it has to happen if we're gonna sustain the amount of spending I think we need to have the kind of quality intelligence we need everywhere in the world. Let me just, one thing and this shows that I've always been an executive longer than I've been a legislator. I do think obviously the role of the oversight committees is critical in this. But I think we miss a bet if we don't force the agencies themselves to come forward with their own recommendations of what is working the best and what's working the least. The one thing I've always found in government is it's always easy to start a program. It's virtually impossible to force anybody inside government to actually be willing to self-identify what's not working. And it doesn't mean we have to take that as full guidance, but it is something that I think we need to demand across the board. And my point, I think we're saying the same thing. That isn't gonna happen if we don't make them do it. They're not gonna do it on their own and I think our ability to see all, and look into all of the silos gives us a very unique perspective to say we're gonna take that silo and merge it with this silo and quite frankly the managers of each of those silos didn't even know they existed. And that happens in the intelligence community, it just does by nature, by compartmentalization, by turf. And so I think the body to do that, that would function in this case as the CEO on the budget capability, not the management side, has to set out the standards and say, you're gonna have to change, here's your parameters, come back and tell us how that's working out. But we need to keep the management at least involved in making some decisions. They were completely engaged in all of the aspects of the bill and two things we said. One is it's gonna happen and be a part of the solution. You need to come forward and help us do this in a way that won't impact your mission, but saves this much money. And I think it's worked very, very well. But what's interesting to me is that you both seem to describe the DNI as the great persuader, as opposed to the person who makes this happen and the power then, and the responsibility falls to the APPROPE's committees to hammer home these cuts and choose some of the cuts. Well, on the authorization, Intel is very different than the other authorization committees because we were very detailed specific. So they could go below those numbers, they can't go above those numbers. So when that bill becomes law, it is they just need to fill in the gaps. So one of the things we did this year to try to get around that problem is I brought on for the first time appropriators, gave them appropriate clearances to sit on the committee so that we could bridge that gap before we got to the actual passage of the authorization so that you don't have this game of the authorization committee does one thing, the appropriations does another and the agencies work both sides against the middle and I love them, but they're trained to do this and they're very good. We spent a lot of money making them really good at this stuff and by God they are. So this is one way that we just said, hey listen, we think this, if we're gonna play the management role on the money side, this is a way for us to do that and get the outcome and I think Mark and I both wanna have happen in Intel. Now I'm gonna kick off with some questions from the crowd starting with Fran and by the way, John Brennan is en route but he's a little bit late which means I get more time with both of you. Oh, look at the time. Yeah. We've gotta go make law. Yeah, exactly. So kicking off with Fran's question, what's the likelihood of that bandwidth for first responders bill that's pending before Congress, is it gonna pass? I mean, and this is a great question and the earthquake brought it up again the other day. Look at this moment, I'm out for this. This is the guy from the industry. Back in my space. Yeah, exactly. Was I not supposed to out you Fran? No, no, no. It is an important question. It is, this is what we do with the D block. Let me first of all say, if we're looking for an area to both have the federal government make a little bit of money, create jobs and where we are unfortunately far behind most of the industrial world, it is allocating additional spectrum. And the first responder bill that has passed the Commerce Committee, it's got great goals and I supported the Rockefeller Hutchinson approach on it. I do worry that in the first responder community, I can assure you it's easier to get Democrats and Republicans to work together than it is to get first responder radio engineers to work together and the approach we're taking is giving them a very big block of spectrum and then they are gonna have the expectation that the federal government is going to not only fund its construction but its long-term operation. That is at least times a challenging question. I think first responders need a truly interoperable system. I would urge they need to have some skin in the game. They've got other spectrum that they could give up. We've got to make sure that we've got states and others helping build out these systems. Whether, I think the bill that we passed has some chance of getting through the Senate. I think there are some folks who've raised some questions in the House, I'd ask. Mike, to make the House comment. The goal is the right one. I just wanna make sure we don't pass something that's gonna end up being a white elephant and costing us billions and billions of dollars downstream because we didn't set up the appropriate financing mechanism on the front end. Yeah, I think it's exactly right. The only thing we didn't find and that we presented lots of opportunity, we missed the coalition of the willing amongst the first responders to help us put this together. There's gotta be a lot of debate on D-Block and what happens and does it go to auction and then leased back and all of those questions we're going through right now. I think there was a lot of inefficiencies in the money that we gave first responders around the country to fix this problem. Everybody wanted their own system or their own fire truck or their command center and it was, I think, a misfortunate expenditure of taxpayers' money that didn't get us to where we need to be which is a fully interoperable radio communication system. So we learn from that lesson. I think the house is fairly close to the Senate position on this that we're going to try to work out some of the details on who takes ownership and at the end of the day where the money flows to the D-Block section and how best we increase the motivation, is that a polite way of putting that, for these locals to get together on their radio communication system. It's the only way it's gonna work, I think. And then spectrum sharing is there's a lot of things that have changed technology-wise in the last four or five years that need to be factored into this debate. Now, moving on to the threat we face now. Great question from the audience in light of the fact that all the top counter-terrorism officials I've spoken to have said the major threat for 9-11 is lone wolf attacks, not the organized large-scale plots. They don't know of any of those in existence right now by Al Qaeda. So this question is, why is the number of homegrown terror cases accelerating? And there's this uptick in lone wolf attacks. And is it one of the greatest single threats facing law enforcement in American cities? Well, I can't say it's the single greatest threat. I mean, we still have the rise of gang violence and organized criminal activity in especially urban centers that I think poses a much greater risk to life and property. However, that being said, it is a huge problem and the cost of terrorism, if you could put a cost on, it's just a horrible way to look at this, but if you have property crime in a community that you're managing versus a terrorist act on the inside, the economics of that are way out of whack. The terrorism event is much more significant economically. But from a violence perspective, I think that's their first priority. And second is this lone wolf problem, which is why New York is doing the kinds of things that it's doing. I will tell you this. And I think it's a mistake for the IC community to say that these are separate and unrelated events, lone wolf, al-Qaeda, other terrorist groups, AQIM, AQAP, and somehow it's not related. What we have seen is a change in tactics on behalf of the affiliates. And remember, the affiliates are, some of them are relatively new to the al-Qaeda network. And that was all done by design and it was led by Osama bin Laden himself. And it had clear benefits to the al-Qaeda core, if you will. But the tactics, and there was, one of the things I found interesting in the materials that came out of the UBL compound was the debate that they had amongst themselves about changing the tactics in the fight. And UBL was very American-centered. He wanted a big event around an anniversary to happen whatever anniversary it was. This one was of particular interest to him, obviously, because he knew it was gonna be important to us. But the other factions that are not splinter groups, I've heard them describe the splinter groups, they are equal partners in AQ itself, but they have different tactics they're bringing to the table and the greatest example of that is Alaki. So when you have a, is it a lone wolf if he is radicalized, recruited, and directed by somebody who is trying to encourage that individual to operate? And I would argue, no, if I recruit you in the United States, I radicalize you in the United States, I finance you and give you some direction in the United States versus I recruit you and fill in the blank, Pakistan, and I train you and radicalize you and equip you and strap you with a bomb and put you on an airplane to blow up over the United States, what's the difference? I argue there is no difference. I think the challenge is, and the difference from intelligence in a law enforcement capability is, how do you disrupt and attack like that? It's much easier for us to do it overseas than it is here, but that really is the only difference in it. So yes, it's a threat. Yes, we worry about somebody grabbing a gun and going down someplace and doing something waffle, but they'll never just do that. In all the cases you have seen, there are indicators leading up to that particular event. They were radicalized in order to get there. Senator? I would simply, I think what Mike said is accurate. In a certain sense, I have been amazed that we've not seen more lone wolf or quasi-lone wolf-affiliated attacks. Again, I go back to just a personal experience in terms of the sniper shooting. Two guys driving around in a beat up car terrorized 10 million people for three weeks. And one of the things that I think we, the president has said, not a comfortable topic to talk about, but how we plan as a community to be resilient if and when, because it is probably going to be more when than if. We have some incident like that, and I think there are lessons we can learn from the UK and other places that we need to start sensitizing the American public for, because God willing, not on anything around the anniversary this weekend, but at some time there will be other incidents and trying to gauge an appropriate reaction is something that I don't, again, I don't think the American public's ready for. Well, luckily for you both, the next panelists are here. So I want to thank Insta and CSIS for having us. Thank you both for allowing me to interrupt you so many times, and thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you.


Okay guys so welcome to Archland so this is not a summoning video I'd like to just to point out since we're nearing January 18th when we're getting Susan, Susie, and Valak. We will be needing a lot of summoning currency I'm not sure if you guys have saved enough but as you can see with mine I only have these probably gonna do some purchase tomorrow depending on how my summoning goes but that is not the point of this video I just want to show you guys on how to farm your gems here and not so much farming for this currency the keys to heaven. Keys to heaven are usually in some of the content for let me just go out a bit. So promised land you can generate keys to heaven here especially for the barracks because there there might be some of the what they call this the missions there for the dispatch that would generate keys to heaven some are usually or most are usually in special missions if you guys haven't you know haven't played mercenary journey it's actually over ready and the next one that's going to be finishing is this one so this is also a good source for keys to heaven but more or less the keys to heaven can't be farmed literally they they pop out during what they call this during events during random content within the game they sometimes pop out within the story so I'm going to talk about how to farm your gems here so your gems it takes around 88 for one summon so you need 880 for 10 summons okay so we're gonna be doing to we're gonna be going over the obvious here in terms of what you can farm daily okay so not this one for daily I'm gonna be going with your daily login your daily login unfortunately only gives you 30 that's 30 for the whole month okay so there you go for daily training this is your daily training you'll be getting 15 here when you complete all of the daily missions then you have five here so this one the privileged payback this I bought from the store this you will receive every every day for 30 days I'll show you the package later on how I got this but again this regularly drops only five plus 15 here so that's 20 so daily log in daily log plus daily training you will only get a total of 600 that is how you farm monthly so that's very small okay so 630 630 so daily training 600 so 20 times 30 600 plus the 30 for the daily log so there you go the other sources guys that I am going to remind you is the special missions here if if you do have some special missions that if you see those special missions please do work on these because this gives you a lot you have 50 here that I have received recently and your mission challenge here again you have your gems here so special missions if they are you know putting out content please do finish them there are a lot of help so please do also it's going to be the event here so during the hero experience if you do finish for each banner there's a hero experience you'll be getting 20 there each so also do that if you can't find it there might as well go to the promised land as well I think I have one more you go to the training grounds and this one so all of the banners are here I think I finished all except this one can't seem to finish this I don't know why so finish everything clear it out so that you can farm your gems also make sure that you go back to adventure make sure that you clear sub story some of these content require drop gems I don't want to you know consume that bread of mine so some story I'm sure I've checked some of unexpected the meeting you can also farm gems here depending on the content so let's try this one okay none but sometimes it pops out as gems what else hero experience sub story promised land tasks so let's go back so promised land tasks what I mean is here so this also gives you gems if you know this is you know you can farm this daily as long as you you can complete these you can farm your gems here what else and also in the main story of course so if you move through the main story let's move to the main story here and let's see the rewards let's just skip this one so there are no you know there are no indication of the rewards here but usually for the main story let's just go back to the main menu okay so main story definitely it gives you gems as well and if you're here all of these all of these content for all the first clears drop you gems okay only first clears take note get farm these infinitely but first clears give you gems so again leveling up is crucial also for special this one this one drops you gems as well so all of the content in secrets drops you gems first clear dimensions also drops you gems for the first clear so again you have the clear content for you to generate a lot of summoning currency a dog's knife as well this drops you gems let's go here I haven't cleared some because I'm low level so here first clear as well so that's it so far that those are you know the content that I see that can generate you gems if I'm wrong please do comment down and tell me where you can get more gems for us to summon okay so onward to the shop let's say okay so first and foremost paid currency for those who are willing to spend the first part was for those who are free to play the next part is best value for the store just in case you want to spend this one for the log this is roughly you only have roughly how many here these have a lot of summoning oh if you click on activate this you will receive so seven key four key to heaven diamonds 200 this is around $10 if you want to buy these these is this is $10 more or less and you're not only buying gems here there are a lot of things here that you get for the whole month I think this is worth you know your purchase because it's spread out for the whole month you'll be needing resources as well or you need runes you need that magic powder unfortunately I can't reach this one this part so it's okay so log is a you know it's one of the best values so if you can if you can it's actually term as the battle pass so if you get the battle pass it's good value at $10 more or less that's for the whole month then let's go to the shop pre-rog this one is one of the best values that I have seen so blessing so 30 work days immediately you're gonna get 150 diamonds or gems every day you get 50 acquisition of diamonds as you can see there in my daily training it's actually here this is this is the 50 this is where the 50 came from this is not actually in your default daily missions this is from the pre-rog as you can see here so this one this is also good this is of good value if you want to spend this is actually our best value the 6000 krw this is valued at $5 so this is for the whole month so I have 25 days left you can subscribe in advance then the other ones I would suggest the pre-rog by the way if you're looking for the cheapest entry to getting gems this is the best this is $5 so again moving on to the package these this one is a dia supply this is actually I would suggest you purchase the seven days if you're willing to purchase this the dia purchase this is roughly $7 for seven days okay so if you want to renew you can just renew each week so this is I think second best of the pre-rog okay so what else if you're in the market for for buying have key to heaven so this one is also good value this one is roughly around let's say five to six dollars no no no it's not five to six this is 20 okay so this one is going to be $20 although this is more expensive but again this gives you the key to heaven so also please buy the seven days because it's on a discounted price rather than buying it on a daily so this is the most expensive pack that they have this is roughly at $20 but depends on you depends on your budget so pre-rog is is number one probably your battle pass is the second then your dia purchase which is this one is the third priority okay you got that so pre-rog it's here then your battle pass is here this is the second value of great value even though it's it's not all gems then the last one would be this one the dia supply the fourth one would be heavenly support package again buy weekly because it's cheaper and that's it as far as charging is concerned as you can see here I bought almost all ready because it's it was actually of great value as long as it's doubled the first purchase is double like this one so the second one would no longer be double value it's actually just an additional small value here but if you purchase these for the first time these are of great value as well okay so that is it so gems really hard to farm they're gonna be farmed through events and all of the content that I mentioned so again guys if you're looking to you know to summon well for the next two weeks for the two new banners coming from Valak and from Susie and Susan then you have to do or farm those content cannot really just enter content and get gems so you just have to play clear content for the first time then hopefully you could save up and get some more or if you have extra you know extra budget then you could go for the packs that I mentioned so thank you very much guys for staying this far take care stay safe this the warden and I'm out of here


We're continuing on with cryptocurrency investigation. And last time we talked about blockchain and I specifically said that wallets are a user interface to interact with the ledger system. So today we're going to look at two different types of wallet systems. And the first is an exchange, which is usually a website. Here I'm looking at Coinbase.com, but there's lots of other types of exchanges as well. You can see if I'm trading, I have the option to buy, for example, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether, USD Coin, and a lot of other coins. So exchanges tend to use what's called a custodial wallet, where they actually have access to the wallet. And whenever you buy something, actually buy a share of whatever value they're holding. What that lets them do is hold a large amount of money and then say that you own a piece of it and keep accounting that way. That greatly reduces fees because you don't actually have to make transactions on the blockchain every time you're trying to buy a cryptocurrency. You're just keeping it in their own ledger system, which they don't charge you for or don't charge you as much for. Any cryptocurrency that's available, they automatically create a wallet for you. And you can see that I bought Bitcoin, the amount that I bought and the price that it was, and then I also sent Bitcoin. So you can see that there is transactions recorded in the exchange whenever you buy and you send or you sell whatever you're doing there. If I look at the transactions, I can see the date, I can see Bitcoin was sent and the address that Bitcoin was sent to. So I'm specifically looking at Bitcoin here. You saw that there were a lot of different coins. Each coin will have its own ledger system or might be writing on the back of another coin's ledger system. So the tools that you use to analyze each of the ledger systems will be slightly different because they're different networks. So if I want to analyze, for example, the Bitcoin blockchain, I need to join as a node on the Bitcoin blockchain. And then I can download all of those transactions and monitor them as they come in. If I'm looking at something like Ethereum, it's a different network. So I'm going to have to join as a node on that network and then process transactions from that network. If we're just analyzing some simple transactions, then I can use a couple of different free tools online. So for example, Blockchain Explorer from blockchain.com, that's an easy one to use. You just put in the address you want to analyze here. The Blockstream Explorer and the Bitcoin, they explored the tool that they have. You just put in either the hash or the wallet address that you want to analyze, but I'll come back to these. So we were talking about a custodial wallet, which is usually at an exchange or a website that's holding your cryptocurrency for you. But what most people who are really serious about cryptocurrency end up doing is getting a local wallet, either a local wallet on their phone or on their computer. So I'm going to be looking at the Electrum Bitcoin wallet today. You can download this and install it on your local computer. And then that wallet becomes a node in the network, most likely a non-mining node. It can see the transactions and it can also make new transactions on the blockchain. And then this is what it looks like. I have four different wallets open here. Each of those wallets has a Bitcoin address that can send and receive funds in each wallet. So for example, we go to our first wallet. You can see that I have two transactions already made here. I have the option to send or I receive and then I can generate an address. So for example, if I click new address, then I have a new Bitcoin address where I can actually receive funds. And now I can send that address to my colleague. I can request them to send me Bitcoin and then they can send the Bitcoin directly to that address. And it will end up in this individual wallet and not these other wallets. So I can have multiple wallets on my system. Each of those wallets have different Bitcoin addresses associated with them. And that's really important point. I can generate as many Bitcoin addresses as I want for each wallet. So one wallet could have one address, another wallet could have a hundred addresses. And I can just keep generating these addresses as much as I want to make things a little bit more clear. Let's go ahead and create a new wallet so you can see the process. So if I go to file, if I go to new and restore, then I can call the wallet new test wallet, click next. And then I have a couple of different options, either a standard wallet, a wallet with two factor authentication. This uses a two factor authentication service. The wallet can be opened with two keys, the key that we hold and then a key that the two factor authentication service holds. We authenticate with the two factor authentication service and then they use their key to unlock our wallet. We also have a multi signature wallet and this lets multiple people unlock the wallet. So for example, we have here four different keys that are available. Let's say four different people that are coming together and out of those four people, two people need to agree to unlock the funds in that wallet. And then we have import Bitcoin address or private keys. And this is interesting because if we import a Bitcoin address, we don't actually get access to make transactions under that Bitcoin address. We can just monitor it. So it's kind of like read only access to that address. But if we import the private key, now we have the ability to make transactions on the blockchain. Getting those private keys or getting a seed, we'll see in a second, is basically how you're going to seize wallets. So we have a standard wallet, click next. And then I was talking about seeds. So create new seed, I already have a seed, use a master key or use a hardware device. A lot of people are using hardware devices and their wallet is essentially stored off of their computer on that hardware device. Using a master key, whenever you have a wallet, you have a private and public master key. If you input the public key here, you'll get read only access to all of the wallet. If you import the private key, you'll get right access to the ledger system.  If you know the suspect seed value, then that lets you regenerate the private keys. And then you can also take over the wallet that way or you have a new seed. So let's go ahead and click next and create a new seed. The seed looks like several different words put together. We also have options here that lets us extend the seed with custom words. So these words are already known, the library or the dictionary of words that are used are already known. And then they just make them random. But a lot of people also extend the seed with custom words and then you can put in any words you want. So just brute forcing this comes a little bit more difficult, but a lot of people don't do custom seeds. So maybe brute forcing is possible. Click next. And then as for a password, if I put a password in, then I can encrypt the wallet file. I won't encrypt the wallet file for now, but we'll take a look at that in a second. And now I have my new wallet. If I click information, then we can see our master public key, but they can't see my private key. And that's the important part. Whenever we want to seize a wallet, those are three things we really want to look for is the seed value, the master private key, or the Bitcoin address private key. If we get any of those three things that we can get access to make transactions using those keys. So where can you find some of these things? If you're looking at a suspects computer and they already have a wallet installed, you can go into where the wallets are held. So for example, I am in my user directory and then a hidden folder, Electrum, and I do LS. I'm on Linux, but it also works for Windows. The only thing really interesting in this electrum folder is, for example, this config file, possibly recent servers, and then also wallets. So we have, for example, in the config information about wallets and their locations. So that could be interesting. The last wallet that was used information about all of the wallets in the system and their locations. So let's go into wallets. And then you can see that I have my four wallets that were displayed. And then I also have our new test wallet. So let's go ahead and look at the investigation test zero one. So if I do cat investigation test zero one, and then I'm going to pipe that into more. First, we have the address history. And this is basically different addresses that are inside that wallet. Transactions or other information is taken place in voices. Here we have transactions and we also have the local message. This message isn't on the blockchain. It's just locally held address that we've sent some some balance to. And then I believe this is the balance. Next, we have the key store, which has information about our different hashes. The seed for this individual wallet. And you can see that it's in plain text here. We have the private master key here. We have the public master key. If we're able to get this wallet file in plain text, then we're able to see the seed. We're able to see the master private key. We can take over this wallet and then potentially sees all of the cryptocurrency that's available there. Then we also have our payment requests. And this is basically just our transactions that have gone through. That was our investigation test zero one. But most people are going to set a password and use encryption. So whenever you do encrypt your wallets, what it looks like is cat investigation to encrypted. So we get something that looks like this. This is just encrypted text. So most of the time these days, you're going to come across an encrypted wallet because keeping it in plain text is just too dangerous. Just expect that the wallet will be encrypted. There's a couple of different ways to go about the encryption. We already have access to the suspect system. Look for passwords. Look for a password manager around the suspect's device. Look for anything that might look like a seed value. People will definitely want to back up that seed value in case they're losing everything. If we're lucky, the wallet will be unencrypted and then we can just see the seed value. We can see the private key and then we can just seize the entire value of whatever's in that wallet. If the wallet is already open, I can go to, for example, wallet, private keys and then export private keys. It will show me the Bitcoin address plus the private key associated with those wallets. Then I can just click export and then it will export it as a CSV file. I want to try to get that as quickly as possible because those private keys will let me seize that Bitcoin address. So I have my wallet that I want to investigate. We kind of know how the wallets work and how you would seize wallets. Let's go ahead and look at the transactions. So I have a transaction coming in and I have this transaction ID. So I'm going to go ahead and copy that transaction ID. I can see all the Bitcoin addresses that Bitcoin was sent to, including the address that we're currently investigating. I can take this transaction ID, go to the Blockstream Explorer and then just type in the transaction ID. So I can use transaction ID, I can use the hash, I can use the Bitcoin address. So I have the Bitcoin address that the money was sent from and then I have all of the addresses that it was sent to. So on the left-hand side is where it's coming from. On the right-hand side are all of the addresses that it's sent to. So if we go all the way to the bottom, number 63 is actually the address that we're interested in. Is everything else related to this address? No. So we sent the money, for example, from Coinbase. It will take all of the transactions that were requested on Coinbase from all of the different users at that time. It will group them together and then send them all as one transaction on the blockchain. All of these other addresses are probably unrelated to us. We're not interested in them. If we go up and we see where the money was sent from, this is the address that it was sent from. And we have our address that we're looking at, number 63 here. If we click on it, we can see that there are two transactions. This is where we received the money that was from Coinbase. So that's our Coinbase address sent to four different Bitcoin addresses. Each of these wallets, if I click on one of the wallets, then I only have one transaction coming in. But from this wallet, we can see where the money came from. Coinbase, we can see where the money went. Four other Bitcoin addresses that could be in either four wallets or one wallet or two wallets or three wallets. We don't know. What does that actually look like whenever I'm looking at the wallets? The wallet with the transactions. So the first transaction coming in, and this is the money coming in from Coinbase. And then we have the wallets, transactions going out. We have the four Bitcoin addresses that it went out to. And I can see, for example, that we have one transaction to each of these addresses. So from a forensics perspective, the first thing you do is find out what addresses are actually associated with that suspect. Find all the transactions with those addresses. And then take those transactions and then use that in your interrogation to find out who it's associated with. If you're doing big cases of money laundering, just using something like blockchain.com is not going to be powerful enough. You saw that we only had three or four transactions and it already started to get a little bit complicated and confusing because there's so much information. Instead, you can either get access to the blockchain yourself and then write statistic software that will analyze whatever it is you're trying to analyze. Or you can use commercial products like Chainalysis to do these bigger investigations. So in later videos, we will talk about more complicated technical analysis of a blockchain. But from this video, you should at least have a basic understanding of how to seize a wallet using the seed master private key or a Bitcoin address private key. You should also have an idea of how to get at least basic transaction information, if not from the wallet directly from a website like blockchain.com. So as a practice, I'm going to hide some wallet IDs around and I want you to try to seize the Bitcoin inside those wallets. So that should get you started. Next week, we'll talk about more technical analysis of ledger systems. Thank you very much.


When I watched the movie Gandhi, I remember one time there was a reporter walking with Gandhi, you know, when he was in South Africa and he was building ashrams and everything. And the reporter from America said, Mr. Gandhi, you are quite an ambitious fellow, seeing the ashrams being built around his thing. And Gandhi smiled with his sweet, gentle eyes, turned to him and just looked at him and said, I hope not. And I was like watching the movie. I mean, every time I'd ever heard the whole discussion of ambition before in the world, when somebody had talked about ambition, the response to, you're quite an ambitious fellow, has been, thank you very much. And I started to, something resonated though when I heard Gandhi say, hope not. There was something inside of me that kind of leaped up for joy, like, whoo, that's a different response. And what I've seen more and more as I've gotten into the course is that, as Tara said, whenever we're ambitious in a worldly sense, then we also have a sense of ruthlessness that comes in with that ambition because as soon as I'm striving to gain something of the world, then I will perceive my brother at the time as obstruction getting into the way of my ambition of what I want. And so all of a sudden Gandhi's little statement, I hope not, took on new meanings because it was like, but ambition is such a deeply, I mean, I grew up in America. There's the land of the free and the free enterprise and everything. And I really had a very positive connotation and association with ambition. And it's only been going into the course deeper and deeper where Jesus will throw out a line like, perhaps you have noticed an outstanding characteristic of the ego. That every end, the ego end that you have pursued, when you have achieved it has not satisfied you. That is why the ego is forced to constantly shift from one goal to the next, hoping that you will find something that will yet satisfy you. But I read a quote like that from Jesus and of course the miracle was like, I've been doing my whole life. You know, I did it in college with degrees. You know, this degree is not enough. I need this degree. I've done it with relationships. This relationship is good, but I can do better. This, I've done it with possession. You know, this car is nice. It has all these extra filth steering wheel and rear window defogger and everything. But I'm really not satisfied. I've kind of got my eye on that car over there. You know, and it's like after a while, it slowly started to see. You need one more thing. Yeah. And it seems to be never ending. So I think, in one sense, we're just trying to expose the ego thoughts. We talked a little bit about this last night too. It can seem, a lot of times, in reading the course where people can feel like, wait a minute, this seems like a sense of relinquishment. I've learned all these things and I've kind of got accustomed to a certain life. And the course is coming along and it's kind of saying, your perceptions all messed up. And occasionally we'll use words like Jesus will say, give up the world. And he even puts an exclamation point behind it one time. So you know, you must be pretty serious with this idea. But through the ego's lens, it's kind of like, ooh, I don't want to give up anything. Right. And I feel like that. Yeah, exactly. You know, it's like, I'm accustomed to this and thank you very much Jesus. You know, I enjoy this. And it's kind of like what I sense Jesus is he's so eager to help us see that by pursuing and seeking outside ourselves, so to speak, instead of within, where the Kingdom is, that it's really a painful pursuit.  And I want to keep things just the way they are. And you can see where in a sense it's like asking to put together, to reconcile truth and illusion in a sense of seeking outside. I want to seek out myself and I want to be peaceful. And the more I've studied the course and kind of gone into these things, it's like, well, I really need to embrace the inner. I need to embrace that light within my mind. And I need to start to let go of these goals and pursuits and everything. It's only because when I have goals and pursuits in the world, then I have expectations of how I think the script needs to go to fulfill my goals. In other words, if I have real ambitions as far as being the best tennis player in the world or the wealthiest man or the best at something, or maybe the most appreciated course of miracles teacher. Yes, very well-renowned, appreciated course of miracles teacher. It doesn't so much matter what the form of the ambition is, but if I have a form in mind, then I will have expectations on how I want it to go. If I'm really looking to be a well-renowned course of miracles teacher, then I may start having expectations of how many people are in the audience or how much, how many books I sell or how many tapes I sell.  God, it's always been hot. My gosh, that's something great. That's outcomes. It's good to have outcomes in mind. And the only way you can have good outcomes is to have those goals set in place from the beginning. You know, it's like, that's what it has to come to. And then there's that insidious thing that says, if I accomplish this goal, then I'm better. And not only better than other people, but I'm better than I was. And that's a lie. But in and of themselves, they really aren't bad. Yeah, and we have to get real clear of what that in and of themselves means or if it has any meaning. Is there any meaning? Is there any meaning? In other words, we were thinking it may be going to lesson 184 which kind of gives the sense that everything that we've come here to learn about, we've come, we've learned about separation and fragmentation.  Can you say, you know, slide? Can you say grass? Can you say tree? Or this is a pencil. That the learning of the world, or what, if we look at lesson 184, gives the sense that the first phase of everyone who comes to this world is learning how to label and categorize all of this separate object. And of course, it's taught that this is very important because if you don't do this, then you won't be able to make it in the world. This is a mature education. And if we look, maybe we'll take lesson 184 to see that, yes, that's the first phase of our learning in the world, but to really be released, to really come to peace of mind, we have to enter into another phase in which we start to let go of the meaning and the purpose that we've given to everything. So it's the attachment to what they mean. The attachment to what they mean. That we're convinced we know what they mean in and of themselves. And actually, what Jesus is teaching us is that we have read a lot of false meaning into everything. And we really need to have a complete transformation where we open our minds up and say, okay, maybe I don't know how this should go. Maybe I'm just going to take your hand and walk into this and trust. But we need to start somewhere at this learning process. There's another thing about our learning, too. As children, we almost always do this. If they blur the teacher of the child in identification, we'll say, good, good. And this is called encouragement. And we're building that feeling that this makes me better in the little child, even. So we get these neurotic kids when they get in the school. They think they were all right and that we come along until they were good and better. If I learn some more, I'll even be better. And the other kids aren't learning as much as I am. When I'm getting age, that makes me better and better and better. And the boxes, even though they're supposed to give us security, like these are categories and boxes that maybe mom and dad teach us that are rights and wrongs and do's and don'ts. Then when we go to school and we meet the other little kids, we start to say, wait a minute, something's going on funny because their boxes seem to be a little different than my boxes. Jimmy's mom and dad don't think that that's good at all. My mom thinks it's good. All of a sudden there's an insecurity because now the boxes start breaking down. And then when we go to adolescence and when we go to college, I mean people from all over the regions of the country sometimes or the world, boy, the boxes, then it starts to be a topsy-turvy thing. Like, who am I? What do I really believe about anything?  And I think that's what's so great about the course is that he's saying, yes, this whole process of making boxes and categorizing is judgment. And that we need to be like it's said in the Bible, judge or not. Boy, he gets to record the miracle. He makes it real clear about all of our pain. It comes from our own judging and categorizing and splitting and breaking apart. And the good news is, of course, that the Holy Spirit has a different judgment that's in our minds. Totally we can tap into this within our mind if we let go of our judging. Kind of get out of the way. So that's the good news.  That's less than 184. Yeah, less than 184. That's probably the first one. Less than 184. The name of God is my inheritance. You live by symbols. You have made up names for everything you see. Each one becomes a separate entity identified by its own name. By this, you carve it out of unity. By this, you designate its special attributes and set it off from other things by emphasizing space surrounding it.  All happening in terms of place and time. All bodies which are greeted by a name. So we were talking about it. Thinking about any kind of specialization or expertise in anything is just like taking this kind of to the nth degree. I know everything there is to know about whatever. I know all the names for all this. It's like the mind wanting to just break it apart, break it apart, break it apart. And then feel like it has a handle on each one of these little parts. I'm an expert in this. I'm an expert in this field. In the old days, a general practitioner doctor had to learn about all the parts of the body. The nervous system and the endocrine system and respiratory system function together. And also maybe some psychological things when their patients seem to be resistant to certain things. Just how to get along with people and so on and so forth. And then if you look at the trends in medicine, for example with everything, it's like now, the days of the general practitioner, it's like radiologists, you know, and we hear noses and throw doctors and paediatrists and so on and so forth. This is, once again, it seems like the ways of the world. It seems like that's the way that this thing seems to be going. That in order to survive, the ego would teach, you've got to specialize.  And the other voice in my mind which is coming sometimes even through my mind and parents and professors was kind of like, you are not going to make it unless you settle down and pick an area of specialty and focus your attention and become specialized. And so for the longest time it was like a push-pull kind of a thing in my mind. And the deeper I've gone, I questioned every field I was in. I questioned the assumptions of it. I couldn't just pull off and just say, all right, I'm going to quit questioning the meaning of life. I'm just going to be a good psychologist or be a good educator or be a good urban planner and so on and so forth that I kept going deeper and deeper. And coincidentally finally I have a book like this that says in order to learn this course you have to question every value that you hold. It's like, yeah, that's what this little voice has been telling me all along. But you know, am I nuts or not? The book keeps saying, you know, if you have sanity within you, if you keep listening to the little voice and it's not listening to this other voice.


One of the hardest things to do on Linux is to figure out exactly how much memory a Process or application is taking up while it's running And you wouldn't think that this was actually a hard thing to do because there are a ton of applications out there that tell you Precisely how much memory your system is using at any given point things like bottom and top and be top and be pie top and GNOME system monitor and caddy system monitor you get the idea right there are tons of applications that do Precisely what you would want to do and when you're asking the question how much memory is my browser taking up How much memory is OBS taking up you get the idea right we ask these questions and we want the answers But then you take a look at something like each top and it gives you a bunch of nonsense right or it looks like nonsense so What I want to do today is talk a little bit about this problem because it is kind of a problem but it's also just kind of highlights the confusion of Maintaining a Linux system now first off before we jump in if you leave a thumbs up on this video I'd really appreciate it. It really helped the channel and Thank you very much for doing that it takes like just a second the buttons right down there So I appreciate that I don't know why I went all youtuber there, but whatever so let's talk about this problem Right, so if we take a look at my running of H top This is H top and it is out of the box very confusing Well, at least it looks confusing if you've never seen it before so at the top We have a CPU monitor and it's telling me the usage of all my CPU cores in total everything That's running is running through those CPU cores and it's giving me a percentage of use per core right starting with zero going to 15 So right below that here We have the total memory that I'm using on my system right now I'm using six point six six out of sixty two gigabytes of RAM and that is just the sum of Everything it is running on my machine So if you were to just have this right if you were to just quit this and that'd be the equivalent of running three Dash M like so and it's going to tell you that I'm using 8.166 and Had tells me I have 64 gigabytes of RAM So here is where we start to have some issues because these this is these are two different tools to tell you how much Memory you're using and we're not even getting into the whole processes thing that we'll talk about here in a minute Free tells me I have 64 gigabytes of RAM H top Tells me I have 62 gigabytes of RAM now obviously what H top is doing it is that it's cutting out The swap that I have set aside. I believe that's what it's doing so because if I add 62 and 6 and 2 I get 64.7 and That's basically what Free is Tommy that I have so I'm assuming that that's what it's doing But it's also possible that it's counting it in a different way And obviously it's counting the used in a different way because this free is Tommy I'm using 8166 which is about a gig a little bit under eight gigabytes of RAM if I go back to H top again Each top tells me that I'm using 6.69 gigabytes of RAM. So why is it counting things differently whether It's counting the total amount of RAM that I have differently or it's counting the total amount of RAM that I'm using differently It's counting it differently and that is weird, right? Because you'd think that no matter what application I'm using I should be able to Go into it. So if I go to be top here just like so I should be able to see exactly how much memory I'm using so I'd be top is Tommy. I'm using 7.9 for Mem a gigabytes of memory. So if I run free free again, like so it's time I'm using 8.22 and if I go to H top it'll tell me I'm using six something That's three different applications telling me something completely different when it comes to how much RAM my system is using What the hell is going on? Well, what's going on is that there's not a Single way of counting how much memory your system is using so they're all doing it in a different way. Also, they're combining processes and Doing things in a slightly different way that means that the sum that they get at the end is Going to be different than some other application that counts things in a different way So I think you'll see something a little bit different here when we look at be top because be top does something That is very similar to what windows task manager does or at least it does more recently The windows task manager has the same problem that Linux does where a whole bunch of processes are running for you Like your browser or whatever what windows task manager will do is it will group them together So it looks just like one process be top kind of does the same thing where it Actually groups things that are related to each other by this tree like structure It's not always the best way to group things because like what does pi com have to do with system D? Well, obviously if you know anything about the way, you know, Linux works system D is the Godfather of literally everything that runs on your machine. It starts those things, right? It it Handles all of the initiation of every task on your machine So that's the reason why everything that is running is running underneath that now as you can see everything here is Grouped just like you would kind of expect but if we go back to each top There are no groups here, but you can still see the same kind of thing going on So particularly when it comes to multiple processes So things like OBS are going to have a bunch of different processes running if you're looking at discord discord now Here's the thing about browsers, right? And I know you're saying well Matt Discord's not a browser. Well discord is an electron application which runs on web technology. Basically, it's chromium underneath It, right? So it is a browser. It's just running the web wrapper for discord So if we scroll down here, we'll see that to do is is doing the exactly the same thing And then we have a voli one here the voli two will have a whole bunch of different processes if we scroll down far enough and browsers and electron apps are going to do that But they're not the only applications that split out there running into different processes. So things like System D does this obviously audacity does it Basically everything you're going to see comes and runs with different Processes for different things that it's doing and each one of these is going to use up memory Now the problem with the way we display this particularly in each top is that the memory line here isn't always What's actually going on? So some of these processes aren't actually separate processes And you'll notice that because like for example if we can get to we can actually see this not moving around for a Little bit you can see some of them run the exact same memory percentage So this process and this process here are both running 2.4 percent of memory It seems a little bit coincidental that they're actually using the exact same percentage of memory when they're separate processes, right? And they're always linked. They're always exactly the same yet when you go see like a different Processes down here. Some of these are 2.4. Some of them are a little bit different Why is it listing them as different processes if they're using the same amount of RAM? Well, it's because the processes themselves aren't tied to the RAM But are instead tied to the amount of CPU that they're using so It's very confusing when you're seeing it in this type of layout because it's kind of not only is it moving around all the time But also, you know, was it actually counting so you can see just going from these different applications that it is Hard to actually find out how much memory your system is actually using. How do I find out how much memory? Vivaldi's using or how much memory OBS is using and how can I trust that the application that I'm Using to measure those things is actually telling me the truth and the answer that question is that you don't I Know that that's a really pissed poor answer, but it's just the answer so on Linux when you talk about memory usage per application Figuring out how much memory those things are actually using is hard because like I said every application counts things a little bit differently So when you see Something telling you that it's using X amount of RAM really what it's doing is it's Estimating at any given point and one of the things that we'll have to remember when we're talking about Linux is that everything is Not only constantly moving because things are running and Processes are doing things in the background. So right now OBS is recording now You think that recording the screen and recording my voice and stuff like that is fairly a simple when it comes to just the broader Idea of what it's doing, but underneath There's a whole bunch of technology that's going into that You know, it's probably using a whole bunch of different codecs and video stuff that's going on in the background all of that stuff has to be running in order for the Overlying features to actually work all applications are like that so when You ask Linux to tell you precisely how much memory something is using it Moves around a lot because things are changing but also we have to remember that everything in Linux is a file So if you have a process It's always going to be in a file somewhere and those files are always moving around being rewritten overwritten moved around and all That stuff so if you go into your terminal and we zoom in here just a little bit And we type in PID of and say OBS. It might be studio. I'm not It might be just OBS. We're gonna find out and just must be OBS So just like that. So if we look that we can see that every process has a PID so this Identification number identifies the process of that application and that's how it tracks Not only, you know the process of what it's doing But also when say H top queries the system of over how much memory OBS is using it's what it's querying is the file of that particular process So for example, if we go in back into H top, we'll see that each one of these has a PID, right? And that's a process number. So we can see that my particular system is running a hundred and ninety tasks 1192 threads and each one of these is going to be related to a task or a thread and like I said, every one of these is a file and You think that you just well if it's a file I can just go measure how large that file is and it will tell me how much memory it's using Well, it doesn't really work like that And also as you can see these things move around much too fast for you to actually be able to query that and then be able to rely on those numbers so Telling exactly how much memory something actually is using is a constant moving target and Because it's that way and because applications measure things in different ways and combine processes in different ways and Group PIDs in different ways all this stuff every application tells you does things that's a little bit differently You're always almost always going to get a different number depending on what you're looking at So we could go through and add up the amount of memory that OBS is using we can do that through free We can do that through something like B top so if we go to B top again We can actually go down here and we should be able to go down here and see Exactly how much OBS is using if we scroll down far enough We'll actually see that OBS here has all these processes associated with so we have 18 432 Which is the main PID of OBS but everything below that has its own PID Well, we can see that B top unlike H top does a combined Memory count for us. So it's telling me that it's using 1.5 gigabytes of memory and what that has done is it's added up all of the processes together and then Talented up into this sum and then given it to you right, but we have to ask the question Is that accurate? Well, we don't know and It's a moving target like we said and it relies on all of these different files that are going around and moving around So this is the output that B top actually gives you and in my opinion B top is the best tool you can use to actually get this information because it does Add things up for you. I believe that if you go into H top You can through some finagling actually get each top to show you the exactly the same because it does tell you how much memory those things are using so there is a virtual and reserved memory column here But unless you're a computer nerd You probably don't know what the difference is between virtual and reserved memory or shared memory and what are those things actually mean? well, I'm a computer nerd and I don't even know half the time what those things mean and why those things are important So each top is not a very good tool for figuring out What memory is used where and also? Jizo Pete's OBS using 216% of CPU right now. Goodness gracious Anyways, if we go back and into B top we can actually see some more of this So when you're talking about measuring Your memory usage there are a few things you have to keep in mind the sum of memory that a Application uses is one thing to ask for so if you go into B top and you see this here It's going to give you a sum of that particular process and because we're using the tree Filter here. You can change that by pressing the E key If we go back if we press the E key what it's gonna do is not have the tree so it's not gonna group them together so if you're Looking at this you can actually see how things are added up together and that's a nice way of doing it But that's separate From this part over here, which is telling us how much memory the entire system is using in Totality and like I said and like I showed at the beginning that number there you can't trust it You're never gonna be able to trust it and you're never gonna know which one is telling the absolute truth So right now like I said B top is saying 7.75 gigabytes if we run free dash M again It's telling me I'm using 7.934 gigabytes of memory if we go back into H top It's gonna tell us we're using 6.49 gigabytes of memory So that number there is where our real problem lays like the and it cast doubt of course on The numbers we got from B top and from a top over how much memory the applications are using because that number there that total sum is just a sum of all of the Processes and applications that are running on the system and taking up memory and it's kind of like when you have a bunch of money And now I know that this is not an experience that everybody has but somewhere along the line You've probably held up a stack of $1 bills or $10 bills or something like that and you know a couple hundred bucks And when you go through and you count them and you get one number and then because you don't trust your counting Abilities you go through and count it again You get another number that's a kind of what's going on here and that's weird Right because you would expect to be able to be able to tell exactly how much memory my system is using but you can't because they're all adding things up in a little bit different way and Whether or not that's because they don't know how to count which is probably not the case But mostly it's just they have a different process for actually Counting those Processes and adding them up into how much memory those processes are using so What's a Linux nerd to do when you need to know exactly how much memory your system is using well They answer that question is that you just kind of what I've what I try to do is I look at all three of them If I really need to know and I kind of average them So right now I know that I'm using about eight gigabytes of memory each top for origin is always a little low by like Two gigabytes and again, I'm pretty sure that's because it's subtracting the swap I don't know why it does that because the swap is technically a part of the hard drive not the actual memory So it doesn't really make sense that is it's subtracting the swap Maybe that's not what it's doing It's just counting the overall memory wrong Which is still very weird because it shouldn't be doing that because I have 64 gigabytes of memory We should also note that free seems to count that Exactly right whereas each top and be top. I believe I don't actually know what be top it shows So be top tells me I have 62 gigabytes of memory as well So it too is counting it in a slightly different way the total amount of like we I know that I have 64 gigabytes of RAM in my Machine now we all know that the RAM thing is in hard drive space is also like this where you know you buy a 128 gigabyte hard drive and you're not gonna get 128 gigabytes of storage. You're gonna get 118 or something like that It's a scam of course, and I'm sure there's a technological reason behind it But it feels like a scam and it maybe that's what's happening here is that though because I have 64 gigabytes memory Would I really have a 62 usable gigabytes of memory? Which is you know again a scam But free seems to count it right so the question is why don't they just use free? Well, maybe free is not reliable. Maybe that's not the way that it's supposed to be kind of I don't know That but there has to be a reason right and the though whole thing is like that's what I tend to do is just kind of Average them together and I always kind of discount a little bit H top because it's so low in terms of the actual used Memory be top and free team seem to be a little bit closer together You they're usually within five or six hundred megabytes of each other and that's not a bad difference to have You know I can kind of see where I'm at. I'm assuming I'm probably right in the middle And that's the way that I do it Now in terms of processes I always use be top because it groups things together and adds them together And I don't have to go through and do that and it doesn't move around as much like H top does So when it comes down to it at the end of the day Figuring out how much memory you're actually using can be a task and you're never quite sure what you should believe just know That you probably should have enough memory in your machine to be Generous to applications that you're running So if you think you only need a gigabytes you're probably wrong you probably need 16 if you think you need 16 You're probably wrong you need 32 and that goes that can continue on up the scale See I thought that I needed 32 so I bought 64 and I think that that's just kind of a good rule of thumb because it just kind of While they say that unused RAM is a waste of RAM I'd rather have more RAM and have it just sit there and do nothing Then have not enough RAM and always have to close programs just because I don't have enough That's the way that I've always looked at it So that's a that's a more of a hardware problem obviously, but that's just it all kind of plays into it So that's it for this video. You can see how confusing this can be Especially if you're talking to people who are new Linux users They come from Windows where Windows has one tool to measure this thing and that's the one that you trust every I mean, I'm sure that there are third-party tools to measure processes and system resources on Windows but most people are just going to probably use Windows task manager and That's gonna be one place where they can kind of trust what's going on they don't have multiple different places to look usually and Therefore they don't have different stories being told to them They don't have you know one application saying they're using five gigabytes the other another one saying they're doing six another one They're saying seven usually they just choose the one place to look for and The problem with being a Linux nerd is that we don't we're not satisfied with just one tool We have to have to twelve of them on our It's I'm not lying when I say I have at least seven of these on my machine I'm pretty sure I'm not alone about that I I mean obviously have top because that's built in I have each top I have be top I have free obviously because that's built in I'm pretty sure I have GNOME system manager or Katie's as manager one of the two on the machine so I have five or six of them just on my machine and I think that probably the vast majority of Linux nerds are exactly like me when it comes to that and If you looked at all of them, they're all gonna measure things a little bit differently And that's just gonna add to the confusion. So turns out that the whole video just boiled on to I'm confused Anyways, that's it for this video if you have thoughts on this whole Nonsense if you're smarter than me know what the hell is going on you can leave those in the comment section below I'd love to hear from you you can follow me on masses on our odyssey those links to being the video description if you Haven't already leave a thumbs up on this video It really helped the channel and if you haven't already and you like this kind of stuff hit the subscribe button because this channel is Awesome, and I make Linux content several times a week And I like to rant and rave and talk about applications and links distros and all that stuff So hit the subscribe button You can also head on over to the store where you can find desk mats and hats and hoodies and all sorts of Stuff to help support the channel as well. That's that shop at the links cast at org Thanks to everybody who does support me on patreon on YouTube because you're all absolutely amazing without you The channel just would not be anywhere near where it is right now. So thank you so very very Very very much for your support. I truly truly truly do appreciate it I like to repeat words here I have this tendency when I truly mean something to repeat the word over and over again just to You know hammer home the points anyways, thanks everybody for watching. I'll see you next time