Personal notice, danger's my stock and trade. If the job's too tough for you to handle, you got a job for me, George Valentine. Write full details. Say, I wonder if you like Runyon-esque characters like I do. You know, fellows like Harry the Horse, Nicely Nicely Johnson, and all the rest. But don't get me wrong. This is not a Runyon story, but I'll let George do it adventure. However, there is a character called Lou Mendel in this little tale that must have associated with the boys, because you will see that plenty of Broadway has rubbed off on Lou. On top of that, the boys got trouble. So much so that even his trouble has trouble, which is bad. So what is to do? Get in touch with George Valentine, which he does. My dear Mr. Valentine, my name is Lou Mendel. I own a nightclub, the club top hat, which I'm sure if you've ever been there, you'll admit is a very high-class place. It's not the type place where we have any trouble, and everything is strictly above the board, which is where you fit into the picture puzzle, Mr. Valentine. There is this girl whose name is Dove. She's a new dancer on account of she can't dance, but I like to be big-hearted.  This is the essence of the puzzle. Who hit me? Even more important is what about Dove? She is somehow in the middle of the trouble. And for such a nice girl, I don't like it. Oh, yes. This is a lot more than just what you may be thinking, because poor little Dove, you understand, looks upon me as her big brother. And how do you look upon her, Mr. Mendel? What's the matter with me? You think I'm inhuman? Well, if she was the third girl from the left, I'd say... Never mind, never mind. You'd say the wrong things anyway. To me, she's nothing except... I think I should help. You think she's in trouble? I don't think very much, but there are some things I know. Here, here. The dressing rooms are down this way. We'll wait. Suppose you start at the beginning and we'll... Oh, good evening, sir. I think perhaps you're in the wrong place. If you were looking for the check room or the... No, not just not, Mr. Mendel. See? Oh, what beautiful flowers. Oh, yes. Thank you. I'm sorry, I was in your way just waiting. That's all. Well... Not at all. Haven't I seen you someplace before? Oh, no, sir. No, I'm quite certain. Oh, no, sir. I just... Well, good evening. Come on, Mendel, that dance number will be over soon. I want to hear your story before we... No, no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Which girl are you here to see? Me? Oh, well, I... I don't think that's any of your hair. What difference does it make? Come on, come on. Let go of me, Valentine. Which girl? Now, see here. That dumbbell, dog... What do you think? What? You keep out of this. It's none of your affairs. So who else should rate my taxier on his dump, huh? In advance yet, with my meter running. I told you to wait outside, driver. There's got to be a light to read heavy stuff like a funny magazine, ain't there?  Good idea, Buster. Come on, Mendel. For the last time, would you please... But, Doug, that man's going out with Doug. No, no, no. There's nothing to get excited about. I should have explained. I'm just a friend. My name is Andrews. Oh, good heavens. Nothing to be jealous about. Me? Jealous? Dry up, all of you. I mean, well, well, look at me. My heavens, I'm old enough to be... I'm old enough to be her big brother.  Mendel says she has no talent when it comes to hoofing. So I wonder what the gal has got. Maybe it's those blacknet stockings. Or maybe she was smart and listened to this. Now let's get back and see how George Valentine is doing as to finding out who gave blue Mendel a hit in the head. Mr. Mendel, please. Look at this. Look at this. See? See here? Just when my hair is thinning. Yeah. Yeah, you got hit all right. Must have felt nice, but when and where? Last night, here, by the door to a dressing room. There wasn't a convention here then, huh? Well, after closing, I noticed a light. I'd heard a door shut and I came to see what it was. It was a door to the street. Only then all the lights went out. I was hit. Well, go on. Go on. Where did she fit in? Well, I had stooped to look at an envelope lying under the door. In it was a thousand-dollar bill. Wow. Yeah, note two. I was reading the note. Do you remember what it said? Yeah. It said, uh, the picture was not even worth the price of a loge, but this is where I came in. Oh, brother, this is where I came in. Yeah, but it happened. So it don't make sense. So what? Is there any reason why you should turn up your nose like this? Oh, I don't doubt you're worried about what happened. It's just a little too simple. But it happened. The picture wasn't worth the price of a loge, but this is where I came in. No signature. I don't know who wrote it, but I got knocked on the head, didn't I? So the $20,000 was gone, I suppose. Money, note, the works. Of course. Well, would you believe that? Oh, yeah, sure. I'm disgusted because the note is so simple. And the money, too, that I wonder why you need my help. Hey, what's this really about, Mendel?  Oh, no, no, please, please.  Can a man in a tuxedo be just people like anybody else? This thing I don't understand. This bump on my head. Yes, George, yes. Got a man who's obviously in love. Be blind. There she is, there she is. The dance number's open. Now, Valentine, quick. What did you mean by what she's...  What? And I... Ah, change in a minute. Well, hello, everybody. Uh... Dove, my dear, I want you to... Bye, Mr. Mendel. Wait a minute. I want to hear what you...  That's it. Go join the boys in the background. Goodbye. Hey, you shouldn't have done that. He's the boss. Oh, he'll get over it. So you're, uh, Dove, huh? Mm-hmm. It's a family name. Oh. And this is the face that launched a thousand ships. Well, I think I get it now, George. What'd I do? You mean we had lunch together or something? And I don't know any sailors. Uh, yeah. My name's Valentine. Well, I'm very pleased to know you. No, you're not. I want to know about the thousand bucks you charged somebody for a picture. What? Picture of what? Don't be so innocent. That's your line, isn't it? Shake down? Oh, well, I'm pretty new to dancing. I guess I never heard of that routine. You never... Let me, George. Darling, we're talking about blackmail. You don't mind, do you? No, not at all. What is it? Oh, now look, sister. Oh, I mean, the thing they always do on the radio. Sure, on mystery shows only. Gee, you're not one of those private eyes. Are you? Well, sit down, won't you? I mean, I'd sure like to hear about your work and everything. Oh, for the love of Pete. Now, what do I do wrong? I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings. You know, I'm always saying things... Well, it isn't what you say, dear. It's what you do. But I don't have anything to do with blackmail. I don't even know... Love, I don't believe you. Ah, lay off her. Would you pick on somebody your own size? Ah, what? Oh, Max, Max, it's all right. They just don't understand. What's your big idea anyway?  I just take it easy, Buster. Nobody's going to push Dover on while I'm... I thought the other guy had a date with her, not you. You're just a taxi jockey. I got just as much right into fear as you got. That's so tough. She looks on me like a big brother, see? Oh, no, not you, too. Oh, yes. Max, here's been very kind to me. Whatever it is, she got nothing to do with it, see? That's all I'm telling you. This baby is nice. But she's just plain dumb, do you get me?  Oh, yes. Yes, that's true, I'm afraid. I mean, I could. It's just the way I was born, I guess. But at school, they always told me never mind. It didn't make any difference. I had other attractions. I mean... That's what I mean. There. You need further proof? Or do I have to knock your block off? Hey, Buster, you want to take a trip out to the alley? George. Oh, no. Come on, you ask for it. Now look, look, Miss, I got a wife and three kids, see? Okay, this looks like a good place. Now look, look, it's only I can't stand people, should think things about. Thumbness, that's all, gets me sore. Dove is like my Myrtle. She wouldn't even know how to blackmail a butcher. Hey, want a cigarette? What? Relax, would you? All I want is a little private information. Oh. Well, now look, don't think I was afraid of you.  I mean, on the outside. Yeah, sure. Say, how many big brothers does Dove have? Oh, I don't know. Every guy that makes her, I guess, sort of brings out the protective instinct, that type, don't you think? What about that guy with the flowers, that guy Andrews? Well, all I know is she went out with him the other night, because I wrote him out to a supper place. Well, they don't get me wrong. Dove strictly wouldn't even hold hands with a guy like that. He's about as hard as... What about her boss, Myrtle? Search me, I'm no detective. Well, I guess you could find out about him easy enough. Yeah, yeah, that's just what I'm gonna do. All right, if you want, I can check with Dove's landlord. I've seen him one night. Looks like kind of a nice guy, but she says he's an awful snoper. Uh-huh. Well, now you get the idea. Who are her friends? Who does she go out with?  It ought to be easy. Let me know what with you. Sure. Just so long as you don't think she's mixed up in anything. Bustin, so far there's only one person mixed up. George Valentine. Hello? That's me, Mr. Valentine. I thought you'd be with Ed Mendel. Oh, Max. No, no, I left him an hour ago. He's even harder to dig information out of than you are. But did you get anything on him? I mean, did you check his record? Hey, hold on a minute. What do you want to know? Well, I'm at Dove's apartment, see? Only she's not here. And you remember that snoppy landlord I told you about? Yeah, sure. Only look, Max. I doubt if this case is worth all the... Well, he's here, the landlord of me. What? I guess he could give you information, all right? Well, it's... I mean, it's the case, all right? Yeah, get here fast, will you? I got a wife and three kids. I'm bowing out.  Well, there's one thing I know for sure. This Dove gal is certainly no Dove of peace. Of course, I can't feel too sorry for that landlord since I never got to meet him. But I will feel real sorry if you don't lend an attentive ear to this. Back to George Valentine. Big brother. That's all of the girl named Dove wants any man to be, but somehow every man seems to want the role. And you're not surprised. Dove is something, all right. But what? Well, if your name is George Valentine, you think it's about time to find out when one of the big brothers, her landlord that you haven't even met, turns out to be dead, murdered in Dove's apartment. Yeah, yeah, it was a gun, all right. Four bullets. One would have done the trick. His pockets are practically empty, Lieutenant. Sure, sure, what do you expect? Free cigars? Okay, okay. Somebody after something he had, huh? Only what was the landlord doing in Dove's apartment? That's what I want to know. Max out there said he didn't touch him. He was lying in front of the desk. Yes, and one of the drawers has been opened. Sure, sure, the paper's all messed up. Are there any fingerprints? Fingerprints. My friend, there's not a single one in this entire apartment anywhere. Oh. So whoever did it spent his time cleaning up, huh? After rifling the desk. No, I don't think so. What? For you don't. Meist did it. The landlord did it. Yeah, huh? Well, look around. Isn't that what happened? The landlord was rifling the desk here when somebody came in and killed him. Looks like he even put up a little fight first. But since his pockets are empty, whatever the killer wanted was on the landlord. Not in any desk. Big deduction. Solves everything. The picture wasn't worth the price of a loge, but this is where I came in. What'd you say? Double feature, Johnson. Sure, I guess I was right. Right here, hole in his pocket. Now it was down on the lining. What picture? Don't look so blank, Lieutenant. Remember that note I told you about with the alleged thousand bucks? What's the picture of Dove, George? Let me see. It's not very clear. It's taking so close up. The enlargement of part of a picture, that's all? Only look at that. Some guys got his arms around her. Evening clothes. Which one is it? Which guy? It's a new one. Search me. I never saw him before. He looks awfully respectable. He's nothing really wrong, but a picture like that would be worth something. Dove so attractive that if any man... As a married man, I can tell you that a picture of any man within 500 miles of that babe would be worth something. Oh, but she's so innocent. So dumb. Take it easy, Johnson. The background's blurred. The color values in the picture are all haywire. So what? Sergeant, send that babe in here. Yes, sir. Only, she's kind of upset. Not half as much as she's going to be when I get through with it. Listen, Johnson, let me do it my way, would you? You ought to go kind of easy with her, sir. You know, she's pretty young. Oh, you suckers. Olivia. Dove, get in here. Yes, sir. I don't want to be in trouble. Just whatever you say. Now listen, sister. A man was shot while rifling your apartment. Who's the most likely person to object to a trespasser? You. So you better start talking. Ah, yeah. Here, Dove. Look at this. What? Guy in the picture. What's his name? Oh, for heaven's sake. Never mind the surprise act. Stopes. JJ Stopes. I always called him Mr. But can you imagine his putting his arm around me like that when I never even let him hold hands? You see, I always looked upon him as sort of a big, well, as if he was my big, what's the matter? Say, brother, I dare you. Just say it once.  I don't understand any of this. Honest, I don't. You can't.  JJ Stopes. Okay, Lieutenant. Why don't you find him? Come on, Dove. Oh, yeah. Valentine. Hey, Max, where are you? Where's your taxi? Dove and I are going for a ride. Valentine. Let your sergeant follow me, Lieutenant. But you find Stopes. Did you try looking in a book, Mr. Valentine? Yeah, there were 17 Andrews. Besides, you said you took him home the other night. It's around here someplace. Don't worry. I'll find him. But I didn't go out with Mr. Andrews tonight. I changed my mind. I mean, Mr. Mendel got all upset, and that made me upset, so I went to a late movie.  And look, would you not talk except when I ask you to? I get mixed up every time I look at you. It's very sweet of you to say so. Yeah, well, that wasn't exactly right. Hey, take it easy, Max. Just remember that's how Andrews plays him on the wrong street. So am I. What? Hey, Dove, tell me about that landlord. He was a snoop, is that right? Curious about you? Watching to see who you went out with and so on? Is that right? Shall I answer you? Oh, now look, Dove.  Well, I mean, yes, sure he was. That's all I know about him. I mean, I don't go out with so many fellas. Only there's no reason I shouldn't is there if they're nice, and they ask me. And they usually do, you know. Max up there, he says, I'm one of the forces of nature. Of course he exaggerates. Only I can't help it, can I? Well, here we are, chief. What are you waiting for? Turn her over to the sergeant back there, will you, Max? Oh, Mr. Valentine. So long, baby. I got another date for tonight. Anything about a thousand dollars. Well, for the luck of your house here, you gotta afford to, Mr. Andrews. Please, please, don't talk so loudly. You'll wake up Mother. Huh? Well, this is Mother's house. In fact, it's her money, too. Oh, oh, yeah, yeah. I thought before that I'd seen you someplace, a society stuff. Now, Mr. Valentine, please, would you get out of here? I don't know anything that would help you. Where did you meet her? Oh, well, I saw her and wanted to meet her. Who wouldn't? A blind man. But don't you get it? It costs money for a guy like you to be seen with her. Oh, no. Like maybe a thousand dollars.  I've never paid anyone a thousand dollars. And besides, the murder wouldn't make sense that I would do it. Anything could make sense, plus to where that name is concerned. Now, look, the landlord was nosing around. He got his hands on some of the pictures. You could have killed him. I was here at home, and you can ask Mother. Okay, I will ask her. Oh, no, no, no. Stop. Wait. Wow. I didn't pay a thousand dollars because I paid two thousand. Wow. Now, I thought you'd have some answers. What for? A picture? Yes. Oh, but it was a fraud, I assure you. Arms around her? Yes, but I've never even thought of Dove that way. She's just so beautiful, and she... Well, she needs protection. It was some sort of process, shall I... Yeah, I already thought of that, sure. Two pictures put together, maybe. Only why so tender about a blackmailer? Oh, no, no, no. I can't believe it. That's why I was at the club tonight. I wanted to ask her about it. Why didn't you ask when you gave her the dough? Well, I sent it to the post office. You did what? It was a box number. It wasn't to her. You see, I received the instructions by telephone, and it definitely was a man who called. Man, huh? By telephone. Where's your phone? Oh, there. But it's an extension of my mother, my... Be quiet, will you? You'll wake her up. Hello, give me Lieutenant Johnson. This is George Valentine. Mr. Andrews, I think you just wake me up. This is a very simple crime. The clue has been lying right in front of me all... Valentine, where you been?  Now listen, Johnson... I will not. You listen to me. I'm just on my way out. Traffic called in. That taxi driver, Max, had a wreck. What? That's right. All over a retaining wall at the bottom of Commercial Street Hill. You want to know who caused it? The guy who hired you. Lou Mendel. I like going. I mean, I didn't do nothing, see? Motorcycle car picked up in your car, didn't he? Yeah, well, sure, but I... Max says that Mendel here side-swiped. Well, he's not saying much of anything the way he's banged up over there. But yeah, Mendel followed him, then passed him on the right, so he'd have to swing out into a truck. Well, Mendel... No, I... Max gunned the cab instead and couldn't make the turn at the bottom of the hill, that song. It's not true, not a word of it.  Okay, I won't bother. I'll let Max do it. What? Now, listen, wait a minute. I'm hiring you because a girl's in trouble, see? Now you got me in it. Now you say she's a blackmailer. Now you say... Did you find a guy in the picture, Stopes? Yeah, yeah. He was the one who wrote the note and sent the thousand, all right? But he hasn't got anything to do with the murder. Neither has Andrews.  Only who asked Stopes to pay? Well, let's say Haywire part. Stopes sent the money to Dove because he just assumed she was the one behind it. A man's voice on the phone said send it to a post office box. What is all this? Hey, see, Mendel, we're getting the girl out of trouble, all right? Eh... Yes, but he... All right. Most people you get out of trouble the fewer there are to be in it. It's who's behind the girl. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Hello, Max. How do you feel? Oh, lousy. No bones broken, but we'll take him down to the hospital as soon as he gets real.  Yeah, yeah. And, uh, Mendel here, did it? I don't know. Looked like his car, but I don't know how he could prove it. Yeah, I understand. Messed up your care pretty bad, too, didn't it? Yeah, burned. I just got out in time. Uh-huh. This time of night, or sea either. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Now, will you listen to me? I tell you, I'm driving my car. Oh, stop shaking, Mendel. Look at Max here. He scratched himself all up and wrecked this cab, too, when he's not nervous. Just scared to death, that's all. What? Valentine, what are you talking about? Johnson, you know a man's pretty desperate when he's committed murder. What did you do with a meter in your taxi, Max? Me? What in the name? That's why you wrecked the cab, isn't it? Because you knew I'd catch on in about one minute flat. Got rid of the meter and then wrecked the cab and burned it fast before I could tear it apart. You're crazy. There's not enough dough in five weeks in that. There's a camera in it, though, isn't there? Camera? Hey, Valentine. Yeah, that's right. Come to the party. Pictures were fuzzy, taken too close. Color values, haywire, infrared, I suppose. You can't prove nothing about nothing. I'm hurt. Say I'm going to the hospital. Oh, I can prove everything. For instance, trying to point a desperate finger at Mendel here. What did you do? Driving home or was that just luck? That's a detective for you. It's best friendly framing or something. His old grandmother probably. Valentine with my own bare hands. I ought to throttle you. Oh, Puster, you just said it yourself. With your own bare hands. What? Yeah, that's how you trapped yourself. You know what I'm talking about. No fingerprints. Not a single fingerprint in that entire apartment where the landlord was killed. Not anywhere. So it's my fault, I suppose. You were too careful, Max, because you reported the crime to me from that same apartment. Well, Puster, why didn't they find your fingerprints on that telephone? I got him. I got him.  Valentine, wait. Let go. Hold him, Sergeant. Hold him. Where you going? It's all over you. Oh, no, it's not, Johnson. You're going to look for that taxi meter, aren't you? Well, sure. Okay then, before you find it, I got about two seconds to find Brooksy. My explanation hasn't even started yet. I wonder what George has up his sleeve. Seems to me this case is open and shut. But I guess we'll just have to be patient for a minute, which won't be hard because of this. George, I understand all that, and I can read his confession in the morning. Well, I just wanted you to get it from me first. Hey, driver, get off the main street, will you, and go a little faster? Sure. No place faster. That makes sense, I should argue. George, the thing I'm interested in is Dove. Well, me too. What man wouldn't be? But she was responsible for all this. Max couldn't have done it without her cooperation, so... No, no, no, Angel, I think she told the truth. I think she's just dumb. You too, huh? Not that she isn't dumb, but... See, I wanted to demonstrate something to you. That's why we're in this cab. You see, I was in Max's cab with Dove earlier, like the other guys had been, and I saw how it could have worked. Oh, what could have worked? Well, if they ever developed pictures from that meter, one of them will be me, with my arms around her. George! So, that's why I think she's so innocent. Man, she couldn't understand the pictures herself, so therefore... You mean she's a minister? Hey, driver, take that corner a little faster, um... George, what on earth are you... See what I mean? Just accidental, that's all. The arms, that is. Well, that's your story. Yeah. Take another corner, will you, friend? Let's get dizzy. Hang on. Hey, you too. I ain't going around no corners no more. Oh, well. Maybe he's a brother or something. You have just heard Big Brother, another Let George Do It adventure. Robert Bailey was starred as George Valentine with Virginia Greg as Bruxy. The story was by David Victor and Jackson Gillis with music by Eddie Dunstetter.


as we have been talking about the annual growth rate and as I told you, it is very very important to know the annual growth rate because we have to know the annual growth rate of different countries and we will be able to project based on this we will look at the annual growth in the past we will look at the current annual growth and we will be able to project and predict what can happen in the future how much change can be made how many people will be added up along with that, simultaneously we will look at the resources we can see the scarcity of resources in front of us so the annual rate of change of population now what is the annual growth rate if we define this now we have seen the growth rate the annual growth rate it is an annual salana average rate rate of change of population size for a given country territory or a geographic area during a specified period in some country's territory in a certain time period the annual rate of change in the population size we will look at the annual growth rate it expresses what does it express it express the ratio between the annual increase in the population size and the total population for that year and it is usually multiplied by 100 there are three things it expresses the ratio between the annual increase in the population number one and it will express the total population for that year in that one year how many population can increase and we will multiply it along with the figure of 100 global human population growth this amount to around 83 million annually or 1.1 per year if we talk about global human population then according to 1.1 per year 83 million people in this increase is happening every year which is quite huge the global population it has grown from 1 billion the same thing in the past black of technology and whatever our conditions were of human beings so 1 billion were in the 18th century and today we see that in 200 years our population by 2020 we have reached 7.8 billion it is also expected to keep growing and this is the expectation that it will continue to grow and estimates have put the total population by 8.6 billion by mid 2020 now see because I have told you that underdeveloped developing regions will be much more responsible to increase the world population so we will touch 8.6 billion by 2030 9.8 billion we will do that by 2050 if this and how we know this we will know this along with those trends when we will see the growth rate of the population 11.2 billion by 2100 that is something very huge that is lots and lots of pressure on today's planet earth and the annual increase of the population size when the annual increase of the population size we will define this as sum of difference we will see the difference we will see the difference between birth less death and the difference between immigrants less immigrants in immigrants you know who go to other countries for some time for the permanent settlement for some time for the partial settlement so all these things when we will see the birth less death immigrants less immigrants in any country we will have annual increase in the population size population growth rate is generally at both national and sub national represent a fundamental indicator of course how can we make any decision how a planning can be made how a policy can be made for the people because there is a state and people live in that particular state and state has to make responsibility for its people but how can a state make responsibility for its people if it doesn't know about how many people are living and that's you know a state and how many people can be added and according to that we will make our policy planning if 10 people come to your house and we are supposed to cook food for them then we cook food for them because we are expecting 10 people and we will expect if 25 people are coming there will be a hell of difference between the preparation for the people who are 10 and now 25 so these are simple examples that is why the growth rate is very high and the hard country is very concentrated now let's talk a little statistical about the population data that the United Nations is a linear estimate and it is obtained linear interpolating from the corresponding rate or every 5 years population projections unit of the measurement of annual population growth is in percentile annual growth rate of the world if we talk about 2019 it was 1.1 annual growth rate of the high income countries was 0.4 in 2019 annual population growth rate middle income countries which are developed and under development that was 1.2 in 2.9 as well the world bank resource 2020 and annual growth rate of low income countries was 2.6 in the 2019 if we talk about the top advanced country of the world like USA the annual population growth rate of USA is 0.5% in 2.19 and if we talk about Pakistan the annual growth rate of Pakistan was 2.0 in 2019


Let's suppose you're at the grocery store and you've filled your shopping cart with the usual junk food items and you're feeling a bit guilty over your lack of green and leafies. So you head over to the aisle marked health products. You immediately notice a wide array of colorfully marked bottles. This one claims to support liver health. Another says research shows that these saw palmetto supplements can prevent prostate cancer. How will you evaluate the claims they make? In this video, I want to introduce you to how supplements and health foods manage to make claims about health benefits without any research to back it up. There are two concepts I'll be introducing you to. Weasel words and the quack Miranda warning. By the end of the video, you'll be a better educated consumer. So when you do wander through the health food aisle, you can more fairly assess product claims. I'll also briefly touch on how these loopholes were created and who's responsible. For my non-American viewers, I want to explain the idea of a Miranda warning. A U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda versus Arizona, held that anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime must be made aware of their rights. In 1966, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery, rape, and kidnapping of a mentally handicapped young woman. He incriminated himself during interrogation, which led to a full confession, all without being given access to an attorney or being made aware that he could simply have remained silent. His appeal led to the standard declaration of rights that prevents criminals from being able to claim ignorance. For the sake of historical completeness, I should point out that Miranda was later retried and convicted without his confession, sentenced to 20 to 30 years. He was paroled six years later in 1972 and was stabbed to death in a bar fight in 1976. The quack Miranda warning is a similarly defensive statement to the one the police use. So long as a product bears a specific phrase, it has wide latitude to make health claims without being regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. Here's the quack Miranda. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. So long as that's on the advertisement and or package, you can put statements like supports colon health on a candy bar or bag of chips and it will technically be true in the sense that people who are starving have very poor colon health and having a positive caloric intake is therefore necessary to support colon health. Those saw palmetto capsules can say scientifically shown to improve prostate health. And that will be true in the sense that at least one study out of dozens, the one in fact that had the smallest population size and the least rigorous conditions. But again, if they don't make a claim to treat or cure or prevent any specific condition, they can't really be sued. Never mind that the large well designed clinical trials have found no benefit of any kind to taking palmetto and in fact there can be quite negative side effects. The deception is permitted so long as the quack cure contains the magic incantation often in quite small print. The marketers for these quack cures have learned some very specific weasel words, words which don't put them at risk of being regulated by the FDA because they're too broad or vague to mean anything. Supports heart health for example or may help with weight management or my favorite clinically studied or laboratory tested. Not demonstrated to work mind you just studied or tested. You'll find the terms support and promotes used liberally on unregulated vitamin products as well as may help with. These are terms with no specific meaning and even when the product actually does have a known benefit they'll still use the weasel words because an FDA regulated product also has to be manufactured under much more strict conditions, which increases cost and decreases profit. Then we come to the weasel words that you might find on health foods, all natural, healthy, herbal, nourishing. What they fail to mention is that these terms are not regulated and can be put on virtually any product. No added sugar and low fat labels do have some requirements spelled out in 21 CFR 101. Zero calories means any product where a serving has five or fewer calories as bizarre as that sounds. Sugarless products can contain up to half a gram of sugar per serving, which in a two gram stick of gum means it can be up to 25% sugar and still be labeled as sugarless or sugar free. Technically a tic-tac candy mint can be labeled sugar free despite the primary ingredient being sugar because a serving size is just below half a gram, which is an unfortunate example of accurately rounding down. Reduced calorie or reduced sugar can be used if the sugar or calorie content has been reduced by 25% from a similar product, so a serving of high fat, high sugar foods can be labeled reduced calorie with just minor changes to formulation and serving size. Someone on a weight reducing diet can be forgiven for being confused into buying foods that are bad for them. I can't speak to whether the food marketers who target dieters are doing this on purpose as a tactic to keep people unable to successfully lose weight or if it's simply a matter of not losing competitive advantage on taste or manufacturing costs. What I can say is that confusing health claims on vitamins, supplements and foods marketed at diet conscious shoppers represents a failure to properly regulate those industries. To understand how the US came to the point where we allow intentionally confusing product marketing, we need to go back to 1991. There were two proposed bills in the US Congress that would have eliminated the loopholes and advertising free for all of nutritional and health claims, strengthening the regulatory function of the Food and Drug Administration. One of these bills, the Nutrition Coordinating Act of 1991, required that the FDA approve any health claim made on the label before the product could be released, a process that would have ended the confusing claims previously mentioned. The dietary supplement industry heavily lobbied and managed to get the bill defeated. The mouthpieces of the industry began anti-regulation public relations campaigns. They claimed that regulation would kill their industry, increase costs to the consumers, and result in a loss of American jobs. But it was behind the scenes that they played their strongest card. In 1994, two US Senators, or in Hatch, a Utah Republican, and Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, introduced the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Under the 1994 Act, dietary supplements were to be regulated as food items under the FDA, rather than under the more stringent pharmaceutical standards. Any company could bring to market any supplement without prior testing or evaluation, so long as the ingredients could reasonably be expected to be safe for human consumption. Even that standard didn't apply to products grandfathered in from before 1994. No testing needed to be done for whether a claim was true, whether the dosages were consistent or accurate, and the FDA could only ban a supplement if there were sufficient adverse events to raise concerns about safety. There really are two types of products protected under this Act, those that do nothing that are marketed for doing something, and those that do something but wouldn't pass the standards for pharmaceutical drugs. Orin Hatch has been called a natural ally of the supplements industry. Many supplements companies make their home in his state of Utah, and it's big business, $25 billion a year. Hatch's son, Scott, is a lobbyist for the supplements industry, and his daughter's family own a chiropractic clinic where they sell supplements. He is currently the president pro-temporary, which makes him third in the line of succession to the US presidency. The other author of the bill, Tom Harkin of Iowa, now retired from the Senate, is a well known advocate of alternative medicine. He was the driving force behind the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, and comes at the issue from the perspective of protecting holistic health practices. I find the contrast between the two authors of this bill interesting, the capitalist personal motivations of Hatch, and the liberal alt-med motivations of Harkin, both leading to a misguided bill that deregulated health protections, and ultimately make American consumers less safe from fraud and harm. What is needed in the US is smarter regulation that requires transparency on the part of manufacturers, liability for harm, and the highest standards of labeling, testing, and quality. I hope for a day when I can walk down the vitamin aisle at a drug store and see a bottle that says, this product has been strictly tested in double-blind trials to actually reduce your risk of colon cancer by 20% if taken daily, and its manufacturer meets the FDA's requirements for safe and consistent manufacturing quality. That's something, as a now properly informed consumer, I could make a smart decision on. Thanks for watching.


to Think Tech. I'm Jay Fiedel. It's a 5 p.m. block on a given Wednesday. And guess what? We have George Casey, and we're going to do the movie show now, and we're going to talk about the gilded age. You know, I minored in American history in college, and we read a book by Louis Mumford, who died in 1990, but who wrote this book in 1932. It was called The Brown Decades. The Brown Decades was a 30-year period from the close of the Civil War till the middle 90s of the 19th century. And I don't know why, but it was my favorite part of American history. It was the part where the country sort of graduated from the Civil War, whatever that meant, and found itself, whatever that meant, in an industrial age. And that changed things profoundly. You know, we moved a long way in those 30 years. And I'm still fascinated with it. And this movie, The Gilded Age, is pretty much the story of those 30 years. It takes me back to my studies in college in American history. George, you know, it's a documentary, so it doesn't have a plot except the reality of it. Can you sort of put your finger on the plot, if you will, of this documentary? Pretty much. It's like a historical being yet, you know, talks about right after the Civil War and how the railroad barons started to get wealthier and wealthier and more and more powerful as the years rolled by to the point where J. Pierpont-Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, they had another one. Cornelius Vanderbilt. And Cornelius Vanderbilt, right, they had ability to influence the Congress, Senate, House of Representatives on their behalf to what they wanted, right, because they had all this power, right? So power was consolidated in the hands of a few, and they even had ability to, with presidents, to tell presidents what to do because they had that much power. And the whole behind this is the woman who I've got court or whatever, the producer, the director. She wanted to show for the current day that there's similar things happening. You've got wealth, concentrated wealth, and it's becoming more and more in the hands of the few. So that's basically what she's trying to show. And it showed Pierpont-Morgan, it showed Cornelius Vanderbilt, it showed, you know, Andrew Carnegie, and then all the reformers, Henry George, Mary Elizabeth Lease, trying to think, oh, William Jennings Bryan, who ran for president in 1896, he was winning. And then he had all the workers, industrial workers, I mean, they were not for, in the end they were informed because the industrialists told them that they would be losing their jobs, they would be getting less benefits if William Jennings Bryan came in. So that's pretty much the gist of it. But then you can get into the particulars now. Okay. I found the movie took me beyond where I remembered it went in my class in American history. This was a formative period. You know, we were, you know, before 1865, we were in slavery. We were, we were all enslaved, if you will, maybe that's an overstatement, but we were all involved in that issue. The whole country was involved in that issue. We couldn't get away from it. After that, we had to get away from the Civil War. And in the Civil War, we had learned to be an industrial nation, the North, especially industry had come of age. And so this was an example of what happens when you have a part of the country that's recovering from the Civil War in the reconstruction of the South and the, you know, discovery of the West. But in the North, it was about money and power. It was about technology, about the industrial revolution as it, you know, explored itself in the in America. And it started out with, you know, this tension between the industrial power, the immigrants who had nothing, the power of capital, and the lack of power of the people, pretty much everywhere. People, when I say people, I mean the working class. Okay, then, you know, this was a turning point. And if anybody wants to read a really good book, read the book by Lewis Mumford called The Brown Decades. It's still available, of course, and it is the statement of what happened in this country in that period. One of the things that happened, and, you know, you could claim that we have great disparity now. We have disparity in wealth. We have disparity in race. We have disparity in opportunities in education. And we're more conscious of that, perhaps, than we were before. But in the 19th century, the disparity was tangible. It was everywhere. There was slums and tenements in the immigrant neighborhoods. People, you know, were essentially starving depending on what part of the business cycle you were in. And it was America finding its way. We knew we could win a civil war. We knew we had as much industry or more than Europe. We were leading Europe in terms of developing industry here. But we hadn't really worked it out. We hadn't worked out the politics. We hadn't worked out the social policy. And many, many things were happening. You know, although it was the 19th century, many things were happening all day long. So many events were disruptive, pivotal events. And America, you know, for all of its wealth, and it was relatively speaking, wealthy country in that period of time, or becoming a wealthy country, was cruel. It was uncaring. Social caring, political, you know, instrumentalities didn't really care about people. It was hard on people. And it was divisive, too, because by the time you get to the later part of that 30-year period, you have, and you referred it. Let me, we had a question come in, and I want to answer it. It distracted me for a minute. And the name of the movie is The Gilded Age. It's on Netflix, as I recall. So this is a documentary on PBS, right? There you go. It's a documentary. It's not the show. It's the documentary. And that's thank you for that. I didn't mean to try to cut you off, but I think that was the question of which of the two are we reviewing, and we're reviewing the documentary. Right, you know, I haven't seen the other one. The other one doesn't mean much to me as a student of American history. It's interesting because it trips off the same period. So, I mean, when we get to, you know, the end of that century, and you referred to it, we had the emergence of the People's Party, the populist party, you named some of the leaders of it. And here's the thing. It all came to a crunch, okay, in 1896 in the presidential election. And you were right to point out that William Jennings Bryan ran on behalf of the people, the populist side of things, the hinterland, the farmland, the small towns, the rural parts of America as they existed at the time. And the capital side was represented by William McKinley, who represented Wall Street. And, you know, clearly the number of votes, the amount of interest and passion was on the side of William Jennings Bryan. It was a great orator. Everybody remembers that. But there were tricks involved. And the capital concentrations in Wall Street, this was an election in which money counted. It was a national election of some consequence. Everybody knew that it was kind of a mandate about what kind of country are we going to have? Will it be a country ruled by the people of the people, by the people for the people in Lincoln's words, or was it going to be ruled by Wall Street? And you're right, there was misinformation. There was confusion. This was an election of propaganda. And somehow the capital concentrations in Wall Street convinced people that they would be injured if they, economically, if they voted for William Jennings Bryan and the populist. And that was the end of the people's party. It was the end because he lost. And everybody knows William McKinley won. Look, we have McKinley High School, right? We don't have a William Jennings Bryan High School, they won. And that was the mandate. So from that point forward, the capital concentrations of Wall Street, the money class had leveraged. And that showed through the next few decades, it was regrettable because they were not particularly sensitive to racial issues or to social issues. And the country really was not a sweet place after that. And for a while, and it didn't really recover in terms of the social consciousness until FDR in the 30s. We suffered. And we still are suffering arguably from the mandate out of that election. Very important. And that's why I really like the Gilded Age as a time that we should study. That's definitely. And you know, with the McKinley election with William Jennings Bryan, these big industrialists, I remember in the documentary, they said that they gave a lot of money to McKinley's campaign so that he could go, I think he went around the country in a train to get votes. I know Bryan did as well, but it was the big bucks that were able and to convince that it seems that the farmers were from Jennings Bryan, the more the more rule, but it was all the industrial cities with all the factories that they were able to convince the workers to go with McKinley because otherwise they were going to lose their jobs or whatever, you know, and they would have the benefits that they were getting. So very sly move to get the factory workers to vote for. That made a big difference because it was not in their interest at all. They would have been much better off had they voted for William Jennings Bryan and the popular party. So I think the other part of that is we're talking about an age in which industrialization was king and science and technology were king and the country became strong because it did follow that path and these steel mills that Andrew Carnegie built, they were high tech so much so that he spent most of his time in Europe knocking around, but while the steel mills made enormous amounts of steel for the whole world and that was built, those skyscrapers, it built the railroads, steel was the basic building block. In fact, Carnegie started off in railroads and he realized that steel was more important so he went to steel, self-made man, a very creative businessman. So I mean, you saw extraordinary industrial leverage development power in that period and what that told people, according to the documentary and I accept this, it told people that there was a tomorrow, that things were always growing, improving, getting better, stronger. The United States was the greatest country on earth because it was developing and growing so quickly and because it valued the science, the technology, and the industrialization of the whole Northeast corridor and that had an effect on the way people thought, even poor people, they came to the conclusions, they could somehow get in on that even though they weren't in on it yet and immigrants came from all over the world to get in on it and so there was a spirit, I don't know if you could call it patriotism, but it was an optimism that the country had watching this, watching those smokestacks, watching the smoke billowing out all over town. Yeah, I've studied Mumford's other books on urban planning which he even had a study of Honolulu, early study of Honolulu. So he was a very brilliant guy but yeah, that was that was and you know the results of that, I mean I've been to events you know at Newport, Rhode Island where you had all the breakers and all these mansions, I mean we're talking filthy rich, you know, we're talking unbelievable wealth, they're all beautiful mansions, I mean architecturally they're gorgeous, right, but how they got there is Jacob Reese did photos of the workers living in squalor, you know, in the New York tenement, so it's that big divide between the very wealthy and the workers and you know, as we've talked before there's more of a divide between the CEOs and the lower-rank employees, you know, the CEOs make 200 times salary a year than the workers, you know, some of the workers, so and hard to make ends meet, you know, so definitely that age, you know. Yeah, that was an age in which the idea of the American corporate executive, you know, which was the model later for the world, grew up, he was a or she, not many she's by the way, was a bureaucrat and all empowered and had a duty to make money, it was the capitalism, capitalism was refined in that period as in no other place in the world and part of capitalism was this rampant thing about making money hand over fist and to hell with your employees and to hell with everybody, you know, this sort of libertarian, leave me alone, don't regulate me, don't control me, I'm here to make as much money as I possibly can and if I have to dump on people, I will and so you bring in the Pinkerton's to beat up your employees, you resist all kinds of, you know, union-type organizations and you maintain control and as a member of Frick, you know, there's a museum in New York called the Frick Museum, Frick was Carnegie's number one guy and his job was to bring in goons, beat up the employees who were asking for higher wages, so I mean it was a hard time and you're right, I mean these people had so much money it was filthy, I mean the whole thing about filthy rich and they had a social society in New York where the movie opens with the discussion of a ball, a ball built around the whole notion of a gilded age where I think it was 400 families controlled, attended this ball and they controlled the country, 400 families and the disparity in wealth was even greater than it is today from the top to the bottom and they controlled the railroads which controlled the transportation, which controlled the price of goods, what a deal and you know they controlled steel which controlled all construction and it was the beginning of the movement in the Midwest which was very resentful of the railroads and the steel mills and for that matter the oil through Rockefeller that came later because they were taking advantage of the of the people in the rural areas and they were forcing them into agricultural squalor and it changed the nature of being a farmer, changed the nature of small towns and that resentment was you know expressed in the emergence of the populace and the people's party out in the Midwest and it's still with us today, it's what Trump capitalized on, the resentment of the hinterland against the Wall Street crowd and you know we have to know about this in order to understand where we are today, this phenomenon in the late 19th century hasn't really gone away and you know the series that I was alluding to the Gilded Age that it's a series that I'm going to be on TV I think it's going to be on Netflix or whatever that depicts that age in color even though this documentary was in black and white I think they did that for a reason you know to show that that age but that the Gilded Age series is going to show different vignettes you know of that age and I looked a little bit at the initial you know what they were talking about and you see all these women in a fancy ballroom you know and that 400 in New York City and then they talked about I think it was Mrs. Astor she was going against the grade she built this mansion that was not liked by the high society so they I think that high society was with the Vanderbilt the Vanderbilt people had had longer term money they were older money and they controlled you know the social pecking order yes yeah there was that they got into that too in this documentary so it's a very interesting document only about all over an hour I would suggest people to take a look it'll give them a perspective as you were discussing yeah yeah yeah I had to make a choice between you know this black and white movie with a lot of very very interesting photos very well handled you know the narration was very well handled the music was very well handled I was fascinated you know it's funny actually George you say that it was black and white but to me it wasn't black and white I watched that movie and it was so colorful that it was to me subjectively it was in color the whole thing and if you ask me whether I prefer to watch the you know the docudrama series or this documentary movie I would I would take the documentary any day it's a revelation to understand our history you have stated in those words exactly what one of the reviews stated that it's very colorful even though it's in black and white so you're reiterating out of your own head you know what the reviewer was saying is that it's colorful even though it's in black and white and and that's that's what it comes comes across a very colorful even though there's no color so yeah definitely um but I think you know this reminds me of conversations that you and I have had before I mean there was a movie for example I don't remember if we reviewed it I just talked about it called once upon a time in America oh yeah we saw it and this was the next period right starting in the teens the teens of the 20th century and you know you could connect the dots because that was a pretty accurate rendition of the of the history of the time and so this hard scrapple movie um this hard scrapple time by the way it reflected in a movie that won all kinds of awards called ragtime ragtime was set right after the beginning of the 20th century and early 1900s and it was the hard scrapple times and you don't you know we talk about large issues like you know industry and capital and agriculture but in fact people were suffering they were trying to trying to find their next meal and this was long before the depression it was like a permanent depression through the you know 1880s and into the 1890s so I guess my point is I find this fascinating in the sense that my parents who followed you know they came to this country in around 1905 my grandparents and my parents were born in the early 1910 1920 1910 1912 actually um and they talked all the time about royalty in Europe which was another way of saying they're like rich people we were not believe me rich and they talked about these fancy families who lived on Fifth Avenue and it was all an extension of the gilded age these people were the true successes and everyone looked up to them and thought maybe just maybe I can have some small piece of that later on every immigrant to the country was looking for a piece of that and it was you know it was the ideal to follow and that's what makes this movie interesting because my parents knew this firsthand everyone in that period talked about these very wealthy families and my parents were born in 1907 and 1911 it overseas but they my mom came here when she was just a little girl eight or nine years old and my dad went to Europe and lived in Germany and that's another story when and then France they ran out of 1923 they got the hell out of there when Hitler took over the the Bavaria they got the heck out of there but the bottom line is my mother same thing you know when she she went to work for the two Morgan sisters why of whom was married to a Vanderbilt and she always used to talk about how she did design work with with these two van the Vanderbilt you know Mrs Gloria Vanderbilt's mother and Lady Furness she was hung up on this thing too you know and they were from that era so they sort of had some residue as you're saying for those years you know for the early 1900 years so yeah we're getting caught yeah so I'll leave it at that well I believe in documentaries I believe that you could educate yourself aimlessly with documentaries like this and I I'll be looking for more documentaries like this one because I think it it gives you not only quote a colorful view of things it lets you connect the dots from then till now it lets you understand the trends especially in American history only history in general and finally it lets you make a comparison between the way things were at one point in time and the way things were at another point in time I know if you watch this movie you can understand the depression in the 30s much better if you watch this movie you can understand you know the issues that the country was facing in the 19th century and how those issues maybe didn't really go away into the 20th century into the 1920s into the depression and beyond so it's a it's a continuum and part of being patriotic part of understanding today and the ebb and flow of American history that the social historical mesh that holds us together is to understand the history I think one of the things that's come out about Ukraine we didn't really talk about that we should take a minute is that the people in Ukraine understand it's a very complex history and they do understand they study it it becomes part of a sort of patriotic a patriotic milieu that they live in if you want to be patriotic you need to understand what happened and if you don't understand what happened you can't be patriotic cannot be but let's let's go to the question I asked you before the show I I said you know George we have to connect this up to the Ukraine issue the invasion right now I don't know how we can do that and you found a way what's the connection ultimate power autocracy who power in the hands of one or just a few people and they've got the power Putin is an autocrat he gets what he wants he's a he he runs Russia you know and these industrialists they were running like marionette you know the the president and the congresses was was there they were running the marionettes so it's it has to do with ultimate power power in in the hands of one or just a few people concentrated power that's that's that's the connection here it teaches us about the tension which is forever between the power of government especially autocratic powerful corrupt government and the power of the people it's something that has been you know attention forever in the human race and we experienced it in the 19th century you could see but what was going on if it hadn't you know if it hadn't worked out the way it did it could have been really an awful country we could have lost our democracy entirely yeah that you ask oh you know what is the tipping point for democracy it's every day it's every citizen yeah and and this was a rough and ready a raw experience for everyone trying to find invent polish tune up and create a better world for everyone and there are so many many stories in this period that are hard on you that are hard on history that are hard on people and yet somehow we came out of it by dint of effort by dint of a few leaders by dint of a patriotism that emerged out of an optimism that life would be could be better that's why it's so important to study this period definitely definitely so what would you give the documentary george attend i like the documentary it was very comprehensive from a historical background because i have a background in history it was it really took the whole period and dealt with all the different issues with the you know the populists and the capitalist and and and the government and how everything played together and then the personalities involved you know mary elizabeth lease and and william jennings brian hennie george or all the different players really good good documentary excellent excellent document i give it ten i would too these these are true american heroes truly altruistic truly risking their lives indeed spending their lives working for the greater good uh and we need that now another reason to watch this movie and understand how people emerged from the work of day world uh and became leaders with such great sacrifices in that very period so go watch it everybody go watch it any ideas for the next one george uh i'll have to put my thinking cap on you're watching a lot more movies because you know i'm in school and i've got other community things i'm doing i'm pretty stretched right now so you know if you can find something i'll look at it i don't watch many movies you know except once in a while but if you find something that hits your eye you know you like i'm willing to go with it i'll tell you i'll tell you where my head is right now and you can think about it there's a number of movies both on the documentary side and on the docu drama side about the the eighth century in scandinavia with the vikings and i probably will suggest something along those lines to you okay next time a couple weeks george it's great to have these discussions with i really appreciate it it's very important in our time to extend our thinking uh beyond beyond our beyond our daily lives definitely definitely yep definitely take care aloha take care aloha jay thank you so much for watching think tech hawaii if you like what we do please like us and click the subscribe button on youtube and the follow button on vimeo you can also follow us on facebook instagram twitter and linked in and donate to us at thinktec hawaii.com mahalo


Helo, rwy'n gweithio'r cyflawn ar gyfer gyda'r gondol a gyflawn i Waddon. Rydyn ni'n bwysig i'r gondol arall gwahodd ei wneud o'r gwybod o'r gondol ar gyfer gwybod o gilydd yn fwy yw'r gwybod ar Waddon. A wedyn ni'n gweld gweld hyd yn y rôl o'r gwybod ffasgau sydd yn fawr o'r gwybod yw'r gwybod. Ond mae'n ei gweithio'r caelwyddon. Ac mae'r ystyried yn cyfnod'u ydy'r ystafell yma o'i gael porcelin y dynaserfysg. A'r ddod ddod y gallwn yn gychydig o'r ddod yn ymweld yn yma, yn cyffredig o'r ddedig o'r gael o'r hollig o'r busn, oedd yw'r ddod yn 1667 o'r 1667, a'r ddod o'r rysyn oeddech chi'n gweld Cant Rasmosky in Paris in the serve manufacturing and there are lots of different porcelent services here. This particular one was made for dessert so what I'm focusing in on here are the ice cream coolers which are rather wonderful but the reason for being in here today is that as part of our regular cleaning routines we get the pieces out on a regular basis and we just look them over and then give them give them a clean to make sure that everything is as it should be and that they are in their best state for for presentation and so here I'm about to introduce you to Carol, hello Carol who's one of our conservation assistants and Carol's got a lovely job because here she is giving the tender loving care that it needs to the Rasmoski service so Carol just just tell me what are you what are you doing well first of all when we get the pieces out we will check very carefully to see if there's any damage to anything and then we would give a light shami over it just to give it a little clean and also over the back and I would start on the back to actually clean it with deionized water and a tiny amount of synthonic so products are kind of like a very very mild detergent isn't it yeah over it all which you can do obviously on on the back but not on the front yeah and then we would dry this off and I would have a starting point on this which I always do from the side so the same again I would just lightly go around and avoid in the gilding yeah so you're just on the pulse of it yeah usually like a small section and then we dry it virtually straight away yes so you're just getting any dust or any grease that might have might have attached itself yeah and obviously because in the cabinet they're not they're not as dirty as some pieces are yes it helps when they're as you say when they're inside rather than on open display doesn't it yeah and then because we've got a lot more gilding around here I would just do these these little pieces here so the reserves yes and then I would go around with a cotton bud lightly to do in between all the all the blue which it's painstaking work isn't it yeah obviously I've speeded up a little bit for you yes yes also you'd be doing it many times haven't you so you know yeah and if we got anything that was more intricate out of the cabinet then you can make your own smaller cotton bud so you just make something much tinier to get into the little crevices and so on and you might have noticed that that Carol is not wearing any rings or anything and that's quite important so if I just go over here slowly you'll see you've got a little pile there of her rings and her watch and that's so that you know we make sure that that we don't scratch the surface of the porcelin so Carol do you want to just sort of bring the plate over here and then we can show people what it what it looks like so there we are is the most beautiful thing so this service was painted by some of the best porcelin painters in the serve manufacturing as we said for count Razumoski who was a Russian nobleman living in Paris and it was a first time that that's that all theologically correct birds have been depicted on a porcelin service like this and they're absolutely beautiful so this is a white faced mannequin here very very beautifully painted in lots and lots of detail and then around it these beautiful reserves that we're talking about later with flower painting and this extraordinary gilding and I don't know if you can see that even the gilding is in size so it just springs to life and then the colour is this very famous blue Celeste heavenly blue which and the serve manufacturing was famous for producing and it was an imitation of Chinese porcelin wares so that's that's a kind of closer by the plate Carol can you just turn it over and we'll see what's on the back it's quite fun thank you and so there on the back very helpfully we've got the name of the bird Manacan de Cayenne and the white-faced mannequin came from French Guyana so that's what that means and then look there are the interlaced elves which is the mark of the serve porcelin manufacturing and the O in the middle is the date letter and then below I don't know if you just make out there is a there is a capital N in a cursive script and that is the mark of Aloncla who was the flower painter and the bird painter one of the one of the best and most prestigious of the painters who worked for the manufacturing so his mark is there too so everything we need to know about the service so thank you Carol that was wonderful


When you're in a very large enterprise or a regulated industry, transformation can be hard. In this session, Scott Adams from Rolls-Royce explains how his team, which works on nuclear reactors, was still able to take incremental steps toward their DevOps transformation. Let's see how. Hello. I'm here to talk you through a small but vital step in our DevOps journey. If you can't tell already, I'm here from the UK, Scott Adams, and I'm working for Rolls-Royce on the UK SMR program. So, the UK SMR program is a Rolls-Royce consortium-led program, and we're designing a small modular reactor for electricity generation on proven technology. So, why am I here? So, I'm currently leading the performance methods in the program, which is the thermo-hydraulics aspects of the whole nuclear reactor. And when you kind of break it down into its parts, it's data, it's commercially off the shelf software, it's in-house codes and models, and all aspects of this can utilize modern software techniques. So, we took the plunge and I'm here to talk you through our small step into the realms of DevOps. So, essentially, we're a really small analytical team in performance. We develop, test, deploy, and utilize all of our methods, and it's all to do with providing data not only through design, so we're still in the design phase of this nuclear reactor, but once we're there, we want to justify it as well. So, we want to do a whole bunch of analysis to make sure that it's as safe as possible. And in reality, we've got five nuclear engineers requiring one analytical method with very little software-based experience. So, at a glance, our project and our method utilizes common nuclear codes. So, we've kind of broken all of our models down into aspects. So, on the right there, you'll see steam generators and pressurizers and the RPV. So, we've got a model for each of those bits, and each of the models are wrapped in Python so that we can put what data we need into them. And at runtime, all of those models are kind of stitched together so that we get a whole plant model. So, all of this was kind of originally developed on a really siloed internet isolated ageing network that had the version of Python that it was kind of built on it. So, we used Python 2.4 originally, and we later moved to the ground-breaking 2.6. And because we had kind of little software experience, we went with the requirements capture technique that we know, which kind of pushed us down the waterfall type approach that I'm sure many of you can relate to. So, that ends up with us going from kind of a start to a first release in about eight months. So, because of this approach, we had kind of limited customer engagement. So, we took all of our requirements right at the beginning and then hardly spoke to them for about six months afterwards. And since then, we've kind of been doing periodic reviews and updates of our method. And it's mainly to kind of keep up the design changes. So, there's various teams dotted around that are making quite major changes in some cases to the design, and we need to change our models to be able to capture that. And due to the last few years and the fact that we're kind of still in design, it means that we've actually historically had quite a high turnover in engineers and our relatively small team, which hasn't helped with our optic process either. So, why was it that we kind of really needed to change? And I mean, this list could be 100 times longer, but I kind of went through the fact that we didn't really capture all of our customer requirements because of the waterfall technique, you end up getting a snapshot of your customer requirements right at the beginning. So, we got all of our requirements up front, and then that just didn't change for the rest of time. And to be frank as well, I don't think our development cycle was really up to scratch for the amount of engineers that we had. So, we were trying to kind of push the boundaries. So, this method and approach, it's really novel in the nuclear industry, and it's quite a big task to keep as well. And with five engineers, that's quite a challenge. We had a lot longer development cycles than we wanted. And because we're the same team, I mean, our developers are the same people that use our method. If your development cycle just gets pushed, you just end up placing stress on the same engineers to produce the analysis that you need at the end. We had zero configuration control. So, well, unless you claim Shimadini when we were originally on our Linux platform, but we've migrated over to Standalone and Windows engineering PCs. And since then, we may have had the tools, but we definitely didn't have the mindset to properly configuration control it. Ideas was a big problem. So, nearly all of our development was text-based. So, we had Python, all of our models were based on the old punch cards. So, they were all text-based inputs. So, our developments are all done using NetPad Plus Plus, or even worse, text editors. So, that kind of made peer reviews and technical checking long-winded, because you didn't necessarily know what had changed. The design was getting increasingly more complicated, and we were struggling to kind of keep up as is. And we were starting to consider kind of other interactions with other areas. But I think one of the main reasons that we needed to change was it was just a really paper-heavy kind of process. So, we had a five-step QA process for the plan, design, develop, test, and deploy. And at stage three, you'd already broken your solution up into parts. And for each of those parts, you needed a memo to describe what your design was. And then when you were testing it, you needed a separate test plan to ensure that it worked Standalone, and that needed an author, and they needed an approver to make sure that the test you were performing were right, and it was someone to ensure that it done your tests. And then more often than not, the system owner wanted oversight. So, for just that small part, you needed four people to look at it. And we were already in a five-person team. So, if you did it properly, more than 50% of your team was getting involved in every minor update. And then to make things worse, when we deployed, we pulled all of these together into a colossal document with integration testing evidence. Which just was more time spent writing and less time actually testing. So, I'm going to put a little snippet of advice in my talk. And I think one major one is don't go waiting for your catalyst to implement the solution. We waited for ours, and we waited too long, but don't wait for yours. So, our catalyst was COVID-19. So, overnight, we went from working on our engineering PCs quite happily to having basically zero capability whatsoever. Development came to a standstill, and so did our assets. We had some standard laptops that we could use, but they kept crashing essentially every time you open up a word. So, I wouldn't be able to run the codes that we needed to. So, the key requirements for our kind of action plan that I put forward was we needed to be able to enable remote working. We needed to work with what we had. We had no additional budget for this, and we needed a quick turnaround as quick as possible. So, essentially, my solution was that I was going to use the IT provisions that we had in the office. And thankfully, we had 10 of these little mini PCs lying around for some data churning activities. I was going to repurpose them using Ubuntu. I was going to make one of them the head host node and use Docker to host a whole bunch of servers that we'd need. So, I ended up using MySQL for our data, GitLab for our lifecycle management, and PopIt so that I could push some infrastructure to the client nodes. Why these tools? So, I'm kind of a little bit nerdy, but I run a few servers at home. I've got Plex up and running, so my boys can watch as much frozen as they want on their tablets. So, I use Docker for that. I also do a little bit of coding at home, and I'd use PyCharm. It's quite a nice interface, and given our solution was predominantly Python, it seemed like the best way to go. I'd use MySQL a little bit before in the past. So, it seemed like a sensible tool to use. The ones that I wasn't too sure of was our lifecycle management tool. Because of the community edition version of GitLab and the fact that we could host it by ourselves, it seemed like the obvious choice. And PopIt seemed quite nice, given it uses YAML, and I'd previously used that before. And we wanted to go cloud-computing as well, so this kind of a stepping stone in that direction as well. So, I would suggest that anyone wanting to implement changes do your biggest changes first.  Get your quick wins, it'll be a big help. So, I wanted to show our current DevOps school. I mean, it looks relatively low, but I'm really proud of it. It kind of shows that what I've implemented is starting to click and starting to work. So, people are happy putting issues on the board and supplying comments for peer reviews, merge requests of in-use, which means people are branching. It's great. So, where are we going to go next? I think we just need to push further and further down this DevOps trend. So, I want to utilize CI-CD for all of our testing requirements, get those automated. Build our method into a container so we can get a Docker image that we can deploy. Eventually, go cloud-based, join everybody else using Python 3. What I would say is, you know what's best. There's kind of no one-fits-all solution to DevOps. So, just give yourselves a little bit of time to explore and try and unlock the potential for you. And if you're not entirely happy just giving someone free reign to go and explore, link it to in-flight tasks. So, our setup has been incredible. So, it's been much better than I have envisaged. We've got remote working capabilities, which is amazing, but it's increased our capability to more than we had in the office. We've got a framework to build on. Our peer reviews are so much simpler now. And we're configuration-controlled, fine-line. We're starting to automate these really repetitive tasks, which is really good to see. So, I'm really pleased with where we are at the minute. And kind of as a closing remark, what I would say is just go trust yourself. Regardless of your position, if you feel any path DevOps will give you a benefit, then make those changes. If it really is a benefit, the justification will be simple. So, I really hope some of this story has resonated with some people and thank you for listening.


conveniently pepped by royal family, UAQUAKANIA PUAC been我有那種 idaing her with a small baby 他妈妈一直在結婚以来 我们一直在結婚 她媽妈 Watched her heart==  actionable hält to  tradicional ект ڈ al IFABA � derivач hari � víṃ ൖെ ൐ ൌ ൖേ ൏ ൄൎ ൊു ൎ്ൄ ൐ േൎ േൄ ൚്൉ ൝൅ േൎ േൎ ൊേ ൈൎ ൌ ൔൈ ൟു ൗേ ൔ൅ ൾേൎ ്െ േേൎ േൎതെ ൟൎ ൖൎ േ് ൉� వా్సిలౌలౌఇకి వినెరి్ం ఆందియింఽత౿ంది చిలీకారిఌకాకనిం గదిమికి .  ಶ�膓್'mмер mware mware between the calendar and our  ಷ್ hiceನ ವಾರ್immungಲ್ನ ಹ glaubenಬೆರzlichել. ಗುತ್ಂಡ್ ըುೊ of the 我� Brock renov welfare ಯ೅ಚ but 我ಮ್ épisodeಬಾ ا appealing Kurt Ա volunteer, meaningful for all of us on that side Leo cubic seama Ա volunteer ... Ա volunteer was converted to prologa Ա volunteer would career to足 planet Ա volunteer would career to hung lotus Ա volunteer would career Lagin Ա volunteer would resource  completion khat Ա volunteer would service Ա volunteer would allow ու忙  ׸ for mealsಗಳಡಟighinga ಗೆಥಗರ ಮೇಸ್ಸ್ಕಿಸೆಳುಂವ್ಸಿನುವೇಗರಂವ್ಽದುಕಳೈಟೋಥ ಊಾಂದುವಾವು ಸಡ್ಒಯವ್ಶ್ಲು ಥಣಾರ಴್ನ್ರನಲ್ Queensboroughದ್ರನಿವಾಲುನ ವಂತ್ನತುತತುಲ್ಬಹಿ ನಿನ್ವಾಕವ ಖ� warенияಜವಗಳಬ ṬÃ Ṣāṅd Uhm Thinking of нас and emotions is sometimes a form of humanity that no one is able to understand automatically. Ṣāṅd Ṭāṅam इु आप आप ए कुई आप आप ॥iding । జੇ੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍੍� ੍੍੍੍੍੍� ಕಲಾಗಳ ವಾರಾರ್ನ್ತ�erenರ್ಗೆದಷುಣ್ತ ಪಿiałaದ ಕೇನಿ ಣಿಟಕಲು ಸಿಿಗೇ ವಾರುತು ಇವಡಿ sagte outsetೇತಾಡಿನ್ತ ವಾರು ಸಿಕಾಸರ್ತಾಯ ವಂಡಿದ್ಡಿ ಗಪಿನ್ತೌbrokenಳ ಣಿವ್ತ ಬ ಹ್ಟನ್ತುದಾಕ ಲಾಝ್ಯನ್. గఎవానాలడి, కానాని, ఉలాసెజి, స్రలలపనిసిఝావాచిలా 번째. వివగాగి suf colle బలొబ్వuais మంన cold Province, correcting contact under pressure are the pro odegue pressure ఇవ Breatciplinaryritis were Joan dershorn నానింయతక నరరి that is very muchаксимcular road service in the lab మిమన డినదన నారినం మనలరి మాని 그랬రానిన наш నかなవతపశం. सटे அखream 선배 तव भीशन मदाधरषा मरछे यह लेद from the court, we were trying out right awayतव ले� William M commits Crime In애 Mob उआँच में तव ख़़द關 steht at a village of the rural-eginal उआगच में आखच आखच रे Mister says, I sing along with him just to get to know आखच हर्शों ौत at his office from theenan Cuz how many I have, money, I don't have power how can I serve humanity How come I serve humanity And also you can inside And on theôn So that, it will affect people स्द्दीक। को spectator । ocaly上面 finer berly उकना ज्या प्डढ़़। धके तू ख्या आप उकँ ई का थे कि पूू।uses. Just like they say, men and women and others go to know each other when they meet their boyfriend. Personally, I'd tend to leave each other after I'm married. In fact, it is very surprising. Asorte re- chimney getting up in the morning. The woman feels very一 nerves, trying to serve one's girl. See, I usually own a husband, for instance, even with her. I'd have no idea when my wife or any of my friends would like to marry. లోలోమాతాతార౾ల్ కరనిలానిలలుటికిరంకీవాష౅భినీటకనాలునీటిిలాపైపిందాని ఇపోనికనంటిసిళిం నిడిమానినికనల్ల్ల� తియోలోను బ్చిందార్నాల్ండిన్ భాపాన్. బిందాచిఊిత్మితికియాచిన్లీల్బ. పానివినాన్ పాన్రదిం కిలతికికాత్మమితినా. द्त्स्य prolonged 款 । अr憤 उ प्लतं आंभवादि कोटा सु �ows । आो गी्य किषी और ऑा सॉं उप्ला रीड्खी था République  IoT guy ौ ौ ॉ Gallo lukha k historian.


So my guest today on the remote version of Coffee Time, James Gioshon, I saw you had on the website a little pronunciation. Gioshon. Widget, I guess. Who spoke that? Where does that audio clip come from? That comes from like, you can like type in your name phonetically. Okay. I forget exactly what I did so long ago. I just had so many issues when I gave talks back in academia where people just absolutely butchered my name and I was trying to make it a little bit less butchery. Frat's I record my big camera. How long have you been out of academia? So I got my job in October of 2018. So it's almost two years now. A year and a half, almost two years, yeah. Yeah, I did the Insight program. I had mentioned this when I went to double ES. The Insight program was kind of like hit and miss for me. That's my last question. What's your hot take on it? What's your review? Yeah, I think it wasn't bad. There's lots of common sense stuff you learn. I think the main advantage you have is connections to the people in your cohort and in principle, they might help you further down the line, get the next job or just someone you can talk to if you wanted some advice about some situation that you're in. Many of the things that you learn about resume building and how to do interviews and stuff is it's something that can be done on your own. If you're self-guided, you may not do it perfectly, but it's something you can do on your own. So it's not like some unique thing that they're doing. And the other thing is that they're not really teaching you how to be a data scientist. They're really just teaching you how to present yourself. They're really trying to untrain a lot of the bad science habits, scientist habits is kind of there. It's like a boot untraining camp in a way. Yeah, I don't know. There's a lot of clones out there that are not all exactly the same as insight in terms of like what they do. I think if someone is in a position like me, like a postdoc looking to make the jump, it probably makes sense to shop around, like look at those other ones that are out there and think about whether those might be better for you. I see your resume and the things that I knew about your astral career. So I heard your name first with Voxcharta is how I knew about you. So but I always sort of perceived you as being very like algorithm, very data science-y already in the astral world. Do you think, looking back hindsight 2020, do you think like this kind of jump was always kind of in the cards for you? Do you think you had set yourself up long before or was this a big shift for you to decide, I'm gonna leave the academic path and I'm gonna go into this technical side? So in grand school, like most of what I did was a hundred dynamical simulations like 3D simulations of supernovae and tidal disruption events using a fluid dynamics code called flash written in Fortran. I knew like when I was working on that that, hey, this is a skill that is not transferable to most anywhere. And when I started my postdoc, I made it a conscious effort to shift myself more into the data analysis, data science, model building kind of space. Both because I thought it would help my academic prospects and because I thought it would be better for the industry job to have just like more exposure. It is kind of conscious effort to shift like what I was working on to be a little bit more I thought transferable to the real world. Now in the end, I do use physics occasionally from time to time in my job, just as like a sanity check, I'd say. Like I know like how to do unit analysis and order of magnitude calculations in my head, which I think is pretty useful sometimes when you're just trying to solve something quickly. I think that's my only actual skill. Like when I boil it down, like I know some facts about things, but I think the only actual skill that I have is like, I can quickly come up with not a great answer to that question. This is like kind of Fermi problem solving.  And you know, it's, then you're like, well, it's probably only accurate to an order of magnitude. And then they're not impressed. They're like, oh, that doesn't sound very accurate to me.  And it's just gonna help you think, I think about that kind of thing. Can I ask you like one more question but you don't have to answer. You can answer any way you like. Why did you leave, leave academia? Did you run out of options? Or were you, or before that point where you were like, I'm not happy.  I think it was a mixture of the two. Like, I applied fairly broadly my first like faculty job cycle, many places where I was just like, I probably won't be happy at this place but let's just apply, see like what happens. And I got pickier as time went on.  But roughly how many cycles did you apply? How many years? Four cycles. Four. So yeah, so it was like, I was, yeah, I mean, in total I submitted probably 50 or 60 applications. I know people who submitted close to a hundred and you know, ended up not getting anything that they wanted. And you know, at some point I was just like, okay, this is really banging my head against the wall. And particularly like some years, even like the, my top choice of all the choices, I was like, this is actually kind of a trade-off. Like I'm not really sure I'd be totally happy at this place either. And you know, I think I was always kind of doubtful like in the process. And at least for me, I knew that if I did that, like if I became faculty, I would to be satisfied with like the level of work I was doing, I would have to work at least 60 hours a week, if not more. And at some point I just like, nah, I don't really want to kill myself to be happy. Sure. So yeah, I mean, like my work, I work like 40 to 45 hours a week. The only exceptions are when I was traveling out to the customer site, there's nothing really else to do. We could be working like 10 or 12 hour days, but it was just like, you know, a couple of weeks out of the year that you'd have to do that. I see you still on astronomy Twitter too. I feel like you're still pretty active there. Yeah, you know, I think like it really brings me like a lot of happiness to help people out who are thinking about the transition. I think there's, there are a few of us who have made the, you know, conscientious effort to continue to remain in contact with the astronomy community. Many people fall off a base on the earth.  It's totally their right to do that. But it does give me enjoyment to, you know, talk to people and help them out if they're thinking about making a change of careers because I've gone through that process. People were still emailing me like, you know, six months, maybe up to a year after I left the field, but really just like completely died once people understood that, you know, there's no longer like active in the field. Right. And that's fine. Cause I don't want to like answer random emails anymore. Yeah. But, you know, it's just like really the kind of the memory is extremely short of like people who were once in the field. And I remember like reading many great papers in my subfield where it's like, well, what happened to that guy, you know, who wrote this paper on, you know, this like really great paper that I really like and I just can't find any trace of them, right? They're probably not on social media is like older generations. But I just find it really fascinating that, you know, there's just kind of these dead end threads of thought because these people just take all of their knowledge capital with them when they go, you know, leave the field. So anyway, yeah, it just like, it brings me like a lot of pleasure to maintain that connection, at least for now. I have noticed like my interest is like declining a little bit like year after year. I don't know if it'll ever go straight to zero. You're somebody who's created web services and like websites that have lasted years.  And I've noticed that's also something that, you know, people's githubs will sometimes still be active depending on what they're doing. Like not only do the papers go away but like the last website, the last version of the website is like, I'm a postdoc or whatever and like, and that's also people don't seem to maintain that like that sense of advertisement, I guess.  Yeah. It's kind of easier in academia.  And it's harder to build like kind of a coherent story of oneself, which is why it's kind of hard to write a resume when you go from academia to industries that, you know, here's everything that I was and now I'm doing something completely different and I'll like make that coherent. Yeah, I don't know. It's a lot of work to like, like there's so much image building in astronomy, like in terms of like manicuring yourself to be presentable in various ways. And, you know, website is part of that, but yeah. Yeah.  I can just be myself, which is really kind of refreshing. So I mean, so like I said, I knew your work from Vox-Carta, Vox-Carta? It's Carta. It was actually an Italian grad student at Santa Cruz who came up with the name because they asked him for like, can you give me like a Latin name that means like paper talk? And that's the name he came up with. That's Michele Fumagali. He's, I think, a professor in Italy now at the University of New York. Anyway, that's where the name comes from.  I think it's one of the, it's like, it is the only, I think, I will go on record of saying I think it's the only successful AstroPH wrapper. There's been many things, you know, blogs and hosts and you know, whatever, people who have reconstituted the AstroPH content for various reasons. And I think Vox-Carta is the only one that like has widespread pickup and I think it's still beloved. So I think it's a great service. And you know, if you're trickling your interest still just at the 0.1% of like effort, it, I feel like it's still being used. Maybe the numbers don't support it. I feel like it's still a killer service. There are some people who use it. I kind of feel like it's pretty flat. It probably has some decline. I haven't really paid too much attention to it. The hilarious thing is that like 2009 is when I made it and I worked on it like pretty hard, like to get it functional for like, I want to say like a year. And then at some point I was like, look, I got to be doing science. Like this is not helping my case or like getting postdocs and stuff. So I made it another effort to like just like, hey, I'm just going to kind of maintain it but not do anything new. And I literally did nothing to it. Like the only thing I did was just like, make sure it was up. And if there was like some error, I would fix it. But I like feature froze it essentially, you know, my third or fourth year at grad school. And I think astronomers really love using tools that never change. So it's like the fact that it never actually evolved beyond what it was, I think was comforting to people. Yeah.  Right, right. Yeah, like the uproar of like ADS, which- Yeah, right, exactly. You know, format and it's just like, it's hilarious to me. Do you look back fondly as, do you consider yourself a lifetime astronomer? Do you think that was a good path for James long-term? I think like, the PhD in zero regrets. Like I think that was, I would do that again in a heartbeat. Like that was a great experience. I, you know, had a lot of freedom. I had an advisor I really liked. And postdoc was fine the first couple of years, but I did think that, you know, particularly in a reevaluate around year four or five, I was like, eh, I probably should have tried to exit a little bit earlier. There was just a slight regret in like kind of like, not using that, you know, maybe two years that I was really not being very happy to do something else. Sure. And so that, you know, that's kind of how I feel about it. I feel like the experience is great for the PhD. And in the postdoc, I did have some time to try like new stuff and broaden my skill set. But I stopped really growing as like a, both as a person and technically, like kind of after the first couple of years of switching over to a different thing. James, I really appreciate your candor and your willingness to share your journey. I'm sure you've given this spiel to people a lot. And so I appreciate you giving it to me and hopefully to my YouTube audience. That worked out at least. Yeah, see, the whole grand plan is working. That's right. All right, I'll talk to you later, man. All right, man, see you later.