So first of all, let's dive into what is an oblivious RAM. So it's a technique that was introduced in 96 by Goldweiss and Ostrowski, which basically encrypts the access pattern of a random access algorithm. So in a little bit more detail, we can imagine a setting with a server and a client. So the server will act basically as a large passive store of data. And the client will have random access to the memory on the server. The client itself will run a program which is simulating an array, which is also a random access data structure. The client has some small, persistent memory itself, but it's outsourcing most of the storage onto the server. In between the server and the client, there will be an eavesdropper which can see the access pattern made onto the memory of the server. So whenever the client accesses some position in the RAM of the server, the eavesdropper will be informed of the position, not the data being written or read. The reason why we can make that abstraction is that the data itself, we could just simply encrypt. So that would be a triviality to protect the data. However, hiding the access patterns is in general much harder. Security then says that if you take any two sequences of accesses to the simulated array, the one on the client, then the memory accesses that the client are making onto the server will look indistinguishable. So the eavesdropper will not be able to know which of the two sequences of operations to the array have been performed. A little bit more detail, it will look like this. So on the left here, we have the array that's being simulated by the client, the data structure we're trying to implement. It will have write operations, read operations. The words in this memory will call R. It's R bits long. And then the client also have a small memory itself. Whenever an operation is being made, for example, a read operation here, that will result in some probes onto the memory here of the server. We'll call these probes to distinguish them from operations. And I'll call this the array. And I'll call this the memory to distinguish these two things. The eavesdropper is sitting here. And you can see the axis pattern, but not the data. That's the basic model. So an important notion is the bandwidth overhead. How much extra communication or memory accesses are needed to hide the real axis pattern made onto the simulated array? So it's just as follows. So if we take a sequence of n accesses to the array that generates m probes to implement it, then the overhead will just be m divided by n. So that's an amortized overhead. If there's a difference between the word size of the physical memory and the simulated one, we'll just include that in the overhead. So if we are doing m operations and each of them reading w bits, that's the total amount of bits being moved on the bus across this border. And we are simulating the storage of that many bits. We just include w divided by r into the overhead. But in general, it's just the number of probes divided by the number of operations. So we want to keep that small. So what do we know about how much it was cost?  Already in 96, a Gold-Rison construct could prove the polylog upper bound. You don't need more than a polylog overhead. And since then, there's been a lot of research on more efficient programs. There's a seminal work from 13 called path program. It was the first one to get a bandwidth overhead of log n. And as we shall see today, that's optimal. So it's the first paper to show that you can actually get an optimal overhead. There's a slight restriction to this result namely the word size in the physical memory is the natural log n, whereas the word size in the array that is being simulated is larger. It's the square of that, which is maybe a little bit unnatural. But except for that, this one gets like an optimal overhead. Then there's a very nice result from the upcoming Fox where Patel and all is proving a bandwidth overhead of log n. Also the optimal one. And then some tiny stuff over there that we can probably live with. But basically, an optimal overhead again all the way down without having this restriction of having large words in the simulated array. OK, so that's the upper bounds. What about lower bounds? Well, already in 96, there was a proof that log n is needed. I mean, you cannot do better than log n. There were some restrictions to this result. Namely, there were some restrictions on the constructions that were being analyzed.  That means the algorithm or the ORAM, the algorithm simulating the array, is not allowed to look at the data being stored. So you can just move the data around in monolithic blobs. That, of course, puts some restrictions on what the algorithm can do. For example, you would not be able to use error-correcting codes, which would, of course, have to look at the actual data. Also, in this model, the adversary was allowed to have unbounded computing time, which is, of course, a restriction if you're proving a lower bound line, because it makes it easier to prove lower bounds. For example, it disallowed to use all of computational crypto to do any kind of magic. So there were some restrictions on the lower bound, but nonetheless, it was known that it was quite strong. It even holds for what's called offline ORAMs, where the ORAM is given the entire sequence of accesses to the array ahead of time. So it's being told before it has to do any simulation what all the operations will be. That's the strengthening of that result. OK, I'm going to get some water. And then there was a 30-year break where there was no further work on that. So that was the standing result for 30 years. So it was known that log-in was optimal, but that there were some kind of restrictions to this result, but people lived with it. Then there was a paper in 2016 which casts some doubts on whether we actually have a lower bound. So now, ORAM Boil published a paper called Is There an Oblivious RAM Lower Bound? And what they proved there was that suppose there exists a Boolean circuit family for sorting n words of size w bits with size little o of n times w times log n, then there exists an offline ORAM compiler for small memory, client memory, which have an overhead smaller than log n. So in fact, on this, we can prove strong lower bounds on circuits, we don't have a log n lower bound. It's all about the sorting. And the way this circumvented is it's breaking the assumptions, the two restrictions on the algorithms, in particular, this algorithm here is not balls in bins. It's using sorting algorithms that can look at the data, for example, being put into the ORAM. So it shows that these restrictions really are restrictions. It could be possible to go below the log n lower bound with some other kind of algorithm. And then they also propose that what they show here is going to be very hard to prove a lower bound, unless we are very good at proving circuit lower bounds and we are not. So we seem stuck. But then they notice that if we move to the online model instead and look only at ORAMs that have to simulate each access to the array before it's told what the next access to the array is, then the result here doesn't apply. So it might, again, be possible to get a lower bound. So that's what we're doing today. So we're going to prove today a lower bound of log n. And we're going to do it for arbitrary algorithms. So the ORAM can be arbitrary. In particular, we're going to skip the balls in bins algorithm. The ORAM algorithm can be arbitrary. And we're going to say that the adversary must be efficient. So he must be polynomial time. And still we can prove the lower bound.  The only flip side of it is it only holds for online ORAMs where you have to simulate each access to the array when it comes. But that's anyway the constructions that we need in practice for the applications. OK, so let's get to that. Just to remind you, so we're going to call this here the array. That's the simulated thing. We're going to call that the memory. That's the physical memory. Accesses to this thing we call probes. That can be write probes and read probes. And then there will be a small client memory here over here. So let's start with a simple case. I'm going to prove that if there's no client memory, if there's perfect correctness, you always get back what you write in a position in the array. And there's perfect obliviousness. And the word sizes in the array and the physical memory are the same. Then you need a log n overhead. OK, so try to look at the following sequence of operations. First, we will write random words into positions 1, 2, 3, up to 8. And replace that with an n later in the array. So we just write random stuff into the array. And then we read it back. So the next eight operations would to be to read these operations back. Then we can ask the questions. During these read operations, how often must we probe a memory position that was last time written while these write operations were performed? So we look at that operation here. It probes a memory position that was last time written while we were doing these positions. So how many times must that happen? Well, trivially, since we are transferring eight random words from that point in time onto this point in time, there must be eight such things. Otherwise, we're compressing random data. And that's not allowed. Shannon does not allow that. OK, so that was easy. It has to be eight on average. But let's pretend that it's just exactly eight for now. That makes stuff easier. OK, this is a technique called information transfer by a Patrescu and the main that we are using there. OK, let's ask another question then. Let's do a trivial sequence instead. I'm just writing the zero, all zero word to the zero position eight times. And then I'm reading that thing back again. So how many times must that happen that while I'm doing these read operations that I probed something that was last time written over here? Well, so we have to use obliviousness at some point. So we have an adversary sitting, an eavesdropper sitting here. And she's not supposed to learn whether I'm running the blue sequence or the red sequence. And when I'm running the blue sequence, I will be probing the memory here in a pattern such that during the last eight operations, I probe eight times a memory cell that was written last time during the first eight ones. This is something she can keep telling you of just by looking at the axis pattern. She just keeps track of where I'm probing during the first eight operations. And then she checks whether I eight times probe the same things again in the last eight operations. So that's something she can keep track of in pulley time. So by obliviousness, I must do it again eight times. OK. That means during this silly sequence, I must also eight time probe something over here while I'm doing these operations, something that was last time written over there. OK, that was fun. Let's do it again. Let's look at this sequence. I'm going to write four random words with them back, write four new, fresh, random words, and then read them back. OK? So during, let's say, these four read operations, how often must I probe something that was last time written over here? Four, right? Otherwise, I'm compressing random data that is not allowed. The same over here. As I'm reading these things, I must four times read something that was last time written here because that random data there was not in the memory until I did those writes. So I have to go back and get it there when I'm reading it out again. So I must also here do four of those, right? And we're going to off those onto the dummy sequence again because of obliviousness. When I'm doing the dummy sequence, the same accesses must be happening. And importantly, these probes are distinct. For example, here I'm counting four probes, which are done while I'm doing these four operations and are probing memory positions that was last time probed during these, right? So for example, if we look at the eight-week counting here, these are something that was last time probed over here. And you cannot, at the same time, last time have been probed here and there, right? So because that interval is not overlapping with that interval, we know that these are counting distinct accesses. And the same with these and the same with these. OK. I think you can complete the proof by now. Let's do it again, because we're finally good at it, so let's try it again. I'm going to write two random words, read them back, write two random words, read them back, write two random words, read them back. How many must be transferring? I mean, while I do these, I must probe something that was written over here at least two times all the way up. Then we use obliviousness to offload that onto the dummy sequence. And we can also do it with, like, write, read, write, read, write, read. And then I get once, all of these are distinct. How many are there in each row? There are, in this case, eight, but in general, in half. So if I did this with an n instead, I would have n half in each row. They're all distinct. They're slug n rows. So I get that if I make m accesses, now if I do n accesses, then m, the number of probes, must be at least n divided by two times slug n probes to the summary over here. So that gives an overhead of looking. Let's try to make it a little bit harder. So let's see, does this really affect the results? So let's say we have a larger r, then we have a w. Then just by, I mean, we saw it's an information transfer result. So if I'm writing, let's say, eight random words of this size, how many probes do I need to retrieve them? Well, eight, and then accounting also for the difference that these words might be smaller, right? So the overhead just grows with r divided by w. And then because in computing the overhead, w divided with r was in there, so that thing takes that thing, so the overhead is again and again. So it's the same overhead, that the word size, the differences in word sizes there doesn't really affect the result at all. OK, can we make it harder? It turns out that this kind of information transfer lower bound is extremely robust. So we try to circumvent it. So one can try more. I mean, first an obvious thing. Let's try to add a client memory, by the way. Let's do client memory. Let's assume the client have m words of memory. If we look at the first result, I mean, the first result was to write eight random values and then read them back. So that was how we got the eight there. So now let's assume that memory, the client is allowed to store two words of this stuff in his memory. So how many times must he at least probe back in time here? Well, we just have to subtract the client memory, right? Because he could store some of these values in his memory.  He still has six times to go back here. It's very easy to prove that using just Shannon source coding theorem. You just look at the client at this point here. He consists of two words. And then you try to run him and see which memory positions are he probing when he's reading this stuff back. Whenever he probes a position, you just write that value down next to him. That stuff you can send for someone. And then that someone can run the O-ram and get all these values back, because it's just running the O-ram. And whenever it makes a probe, it looks up in the list what would be in the memory of that position, right? And Shannon tells us, if we are sending eight random words, we must be sending something that has at least that length on average. So it's just a coding argument. So we have to subtract. And the same applies everywhere, right? So we just have to subtract in each of these blobs the size of the client memory. It doesn't hurt us up here. It hurts us down here. But what we can do is just prune the log m plus 1 lower layers, m being the size of the client memory. So in this case, we would remove those. If we take log m plus 1, then what's left in the blob is at least half the size as before. So here I take 4 and I subtract 2. Already here is at least half the size up here. I get even more for the budget, right? So I'm removing at most half of the weight. And I'm removing at most that many layers, right? So again, the weight of these will be at least n divided by 4 per row. And I have how many layers will log n minus log m, right? So that will be how it sums up. That gives a total weight of n divided by 4 times log n minus log m. And if we remember a little bit of math, then log n minus log m, that is the same as that. So asymptotically, we see that the overhead becomes log n divided by m. So it means if you have a lot of accesses, you have to basically have a client memory that is as big as the number of accesses to beat the log n lower bound. So it's extremely robust bound. So having square root n client memory will not help you at all. It will just half the lower bound. So that's devastating. Can we make it even more? We could try to relax correctness and say we only have correctness with some small constant probability. You have probability 1% of getting the right word back when you read a position independently everywhere. And obliviousness is also just some small constant. It means if I do two different sequences, then adversaries might be able to distinguish with probability 99%. I allow that. Well, there's a 1% chance that he's going to get confused whether I'm doing the blue or the red sequence. It will not help us. For example, if we look at the correctness, when I'm reading back here, if I'm getting in 1% of the case is the right word back, how many times do I have to go back? Well, Shannon's source coding thing just have to multiply by the correctness thing here. Because whenever you're locking, get the right thing, you're transferring a random word. And then you have to send something that's at least that long. For the obliviousness, it's easy to see that's Marko. Doing a Marko bound in a second. We're going to use obliviousness and Marko. So you just put this, I mean, if in one sequence you do at least c times n probes, then it's easy to see that if you're doing another sequence, and the eavesdropper have 1% chance of not being able to distinguish, then you cannot always do significantly less than c times n probes. If you would always do only 1%, I mean, if the average goes down to, let's say, 1%, then the distinguishing probability cannot be 2%. It's a simple Marko bound. So even for only constant obliviousness, you only get a constant drop in the ability to offload the hardness onto the red sequence. So the lower bound survives that too. So it means if you have m words of memory, constant correctness, constant obliviousness, the overhead stays n divided by m. And we have tried and tried and tried, and it's really hard. I mean, it's a nice open problem. Can you relax the O-RAM definition in such a way you can circumvent this kind of bound? OK. There's other obvious future work to do. There's more cell probe lower bound techniques out there. We used a pretty standard one as starting point here. And there are more oblivious data structures out there. So go prove some more lower bounds. And then there's this to actually get exact upper and lower bounds that's matching. So remember that we have the path O-RAM from 13, which is optimal, but have this restriction that the size of these words here have to be fairly big. And then we have the panorama O-RAM that's going to be presented at Fox, which have this overhead here. And what I proved today is that the overhead has to be at least log in. So it means that if we have log in sized array entries here, then there is not a complete match between the lower and the upper bounds yet. So there's something going on here that we don't understand. So it would be nice if someone could close that gap. We try it. We don't know how to do it. And that brings me to the conclusion, which is yes, there is an oblivious RAM lower bound. That's it. Thanks.


Oh my What's up, everyone? Welcome to choo choo Charles today. It has finally released. I can't wait to play this It's gonna be epic. Who's ready man, of course Alright, uh, let's begin. Let's see how it goes The train just took off, bro Whose man's it is Eugene What's up, Axel Yeah, what's up Sabina? Hey, Jaden welcome. Welcome.  Let's go bro.   Okay, cool All right, oh what the heck When did he get in here, bro?  Oh my god. Okay, cool. So we are oh my god.  You know Eugene gave his life for us. No Eugene just died Bro, I'm not gonna get off the train. I'm just gonna keep moving bro Okay, so you know what we don't square up you kill Eugene we need our revenge This is for Eugene This is for Eugene. I'm over here boy. Oh my god. He's getting close. Oh Here comes here comes. I think it's best if you shoot his limbs.  Are we stopping are we going? What is?  No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Hey, you can go up on your way. He was not giving up Whoever lives here ain't playing no games. It's just a hideout for the minions. Am I supposed to go down here? Hello, I don't know if it's on iPad.  Oh, we got horns Yo, that thing's pretty sick, man Yo, look at my train pimping out all the way. Oh, I got spikes Got spikes around I got horns Okay, that is pretty epic That damaged me. I was far dude. I needed more TNT.  Hey, I got the rockets. What does this do nothing? Okay, nice. We got the rockets now. Let's go back to John And we're about to get a frickin rocket launcher on a train So I'll let you take it from here After you're done, I have a few people to visit with it if you catch my drift Okay, how the heck do we add the frickin Rocket launcher. How do I change it? Wait, do I run out of ammo? Okay?  No way that's it, right? I'm gonna try it Cool. All right. I just had to do that once This is the first time I get to use a rocket launcher. I dare you bro.  Is he is he coming or not?  He is coming.  I missed No Dude, it takes me over to reload. I think the machine.    My train dies. I die. No take out the egg I'm pretty sure there's more.  Sorry, they're gonna pop out, bro They'd be waiting till I get off the train so they can come out That one looks cool It's pretty cool. They're all different Like they don't have the same mask Holy crap, dude.  Probably not.  Oh Man, all right. All right. Let's let's continue Okay, so what am I looking for here the weapon part?  I don't have a gun. I Can't even punch them Bro, I guess it's the only way I'm gonna do this mission. I'm gonna avoid them all I'm gonna run through them all. Where am I late?  See something. Oh my god.  Oh Okay, maybe this is a bad idea Screw you man. I'm just gonna make a run for it screw it Holy go go go. He better not drop dude. Stop snitch. He's coming for me He's coming for me in the freaking elevator. Ain't no way. He's chasing me down Ain't no way bro Holy The egg Okay, how do I get out of here? I'm just gonna have them all chase me to my train. I'm gonna shoot.    I'm gonna keep going. I'm gonna go for the other egg screw it. Oh Charles is nearby.  Oh, I like the flamethrower keeps him away You got a bone paper me huh Charles? Go go go go go He really doesn't do any damage to him. It just slows them down Okay, now we're taking damage, bro. Just stop chasing me.  Oh, how did I miss that dude? Great now? I missed my The route I was supposed to go. I already killed all the minions right ladies and gentlemen We have reached the end. It looks so majestic Majestic eggs Put the eggs in the hole. There's like some transformer stuff right there, bro.  Oh my Is he getting bigger?  He's like super charts.  Oh my god, look at this Charles chill How did I miss that dude? Oh, okay? He teleport now Nice. I wish I could teleport with my train. Oh My what the heck? Oh my god, bro Okay, he's like just getting weaker. How did that miss?   He's almost dead. Actually. I think we're almost dead. Oh No Bro, what the heck? Oh my okay?  I think we got it. Oh my god. I missed that. No take that Charles Oh the bridge with the TNT Yo, that is epic. Oh That's what you get right to the face dude. Yo, that was epic.  It's the guy that created the Thomas the train spider. This game was inspired by that dude. That was sick. That was pretty fire That's not sad. He deserves it Who's killing people on the island? Did it boys? Oh It's not over. It's not over. It's the last egg It's a baby frickin Charles. It's a baby Charles It's not over man The legacy continues Are those a million Frickin spider baby Charles? Bro, he left a lot of eggs behind Okay, blow up the cave right now TNT. Yo, man. No, thanks for this of a parish Dude just when we thought it was over.  Well, there we have it. Oh, okay. See this form for you at eight What does it say here? You don't have a key card with you. Oh, okay The exit is closed you need to find eight key cards to open. Okay, so it seems like we have eight different trails So each trail we go down must have a key or a key that we find along This terrain track. Yo, oh my god there. What he's actually moving. Okay. This is good He didn't actually come down this This trail so let's go down this trail and try to find the key somewhere around here.  No, dude. I'm trapped in the spider web in the Frickin terrain is coming. Oh my god We're dead. Yo, okay.  Oh my god. Okay, go go go go go go the train is right behind us. Oh, okay. He's gone Carefully avoid them No, oh no bro bro Dude, no, come on.  Oh my god. Okay. We lost him with a dummy.  I take that back Okay, we lost him nice. Let's go place our first key card. Where is it right here? Bam one down seven more to go by the train He's coming back. Okay. See the key card right there No Okay, I'm gonna grab this No, we're dead. We're dead. Oh Charlie spider choo choo.  I did not see any key card. He's coming back up Okay, let him pass Okay, I think we have to go back down this way. Okay found the yellow key card My god, he's right there, but we need to go back Bro, what how is he back there? It's worth it. He's trying to get your boy killed man. There's a spider web.  Oh great. You can't even go through the bushes man, bro. We cannot die again. Oh My god, he's catching up Is that the key card right there? Okay, we lost him The key cards right here. You can't carry two Keys Okay, let's go go return this key card, and then we'll come back for this a green card right here Oh my god, he's coming out. All right. There he goes just didn't pass Right. This is our time to go back the other way hide Hide no way, bro. Oh My god, okay, the key card right there.  He's coming back He's coming back. Okay. Let's hide here. Hey, what's our next card? Do we have to go this way? Okay, we know we already got this one. Okay. We need four more cards This is insanity Is he come don't come this way? Oh, no, how did that even activate him?  He's smarter. He's actually smart.  I Thought it was a dump spider train, but apparently he's not he's right on me, dude I don't think I'm gonna survive this guy Go go go go go We lost him. How did we lose him? What's that? Oh My why am I staying around asking questions? I should have just ran for my life. Okay, so I was looking for the red key card I could not find that thing anywhere. I found the torque torque wise one So, yeah, let's go. Oh my god, it's part of it. Let's go return this one I think the red key card might actually be in the city. I don't know But let's go return this a turquoise key card Okay, we're trying to return this card and this dude just keeps bonding here No, oh my god run run run run run run run every time I try to return a card. He just sees me man Okay, I think we might actually die here because it's all straight open and the hill slow you down and he's catching up so quick No Help somebody help please Okay, we're actually kind of far. How can you still see us? Yeah, I was about to say what the heck we're like so far. Okay return this Nice, we need three more See the key card. It's right there Okay, nice. He's gonna see me. I need to hide. I need to hide. I need to hide. Okay, cool We need two more. Okay, we need to go find the orange key I'm saving the last time the red key for last. Let's go look for it a key card. I see it the orange one Yes, okay We are under last key card, which is the red one. Oh my god. He's gonna see me. I knew it Bro Just run dude. Come on. We need to go.  How have we not lost this dude? Oh My god, we lost him and he found us. Okay.   Come on. Just leave me alone Okay, we lost him nice, please don't come this way Please do not come this way. Here goes nothing. I found it. It's in the freaking benches. Of course. It's hidden Oh great. We're right in the open. If he comes to say we're toast We're trained food. Okay, the last card. This is for our freedom Come on. Let's do this You don't have a key card what this game is tripping bro. Haha. See you later sucker.  What a nice guy Hello everyone and welcome to a game where a train eats humans. Yeah, you heard that, right? It is called Edward the Man Eating Train. Now as we can see this game is heavily inspired by Chuchu Charles Which is a game that's gonna come out by two stars It's gonna be released on December 9th shout out to him by the way He did give me a free steam key so I could play it when the game is released And also I believe if you go to his Twitter you can also have a chance to win the steam key He's doing like a giveaway on there. So make sure to check that out if you want to play it Okay, we are here waiting for the train to arrive. I believe train arriving in a minute 30 seconds Okay, cool. What's this over here? Okay, so it seemed like we have a map That we have to complete these might be like different levels throughout the game and we are oh my god I hear gunshots Dude you guys hear that, right? Okay, we're at the general cold Joe general oil cold west. Oh Okay, the train's right Expect it guys make sure to smash the like button subscribe. No that good stuff, right? Let's uh Board the train all aboard and here we go. Wait dude it left. What's up? It's a train. Leave me do it. I'm right what I Just been left behind okay dead and traveling to beggars bluff Okay, it says ETA four minutes danger low alright, so it seems like this might be an easier Level to the game. Okay. What is this ammunition? Okay, so you can collect ammo. What is this medical box? I see a ticket. I think the tickets are for you to buy stuff Okay, open ticket box. Oh, oh my god. I hear gunshots already, bro. This is Edward this man eating train here already Dude if he is I'm screwed. I only have a freaking pistol man What am I gonna do to a man eating train with the pistol like boy hear it? Oh, there he is.  I'm gonna tell this guy out the door.    I think we're gonna die. Oh Oh My man is like crashing into the train. Yo Oh my god, he's trying to get us okay, I don't grow. I'm gone brother. I am moving on to the next train And the game is free. You know my god. Okay, what is going on? I have no ammo.  Come on. Get grab the ammo grab the ammo reload Where's my team I'm like the only one shooting no no no He's trying to grab me. Oh, he's great. Oh, heck not man. No, bro. Why is he trying to get me? Dude, he's trying to set me up man. Somebody help me Somebody got 9-1-1 man Get my safe right here Get the ammo. Please don't get me. Please don't get me. I'm grabbing the ammo. Come on, dude This takes forever.  Okay, he's gone He's gone.  That was insane He's just like pulled up started bashing himself towards against the train. He broke down the card actually Let's go see the results and I'll hold up. Let me just grab more ammo Dude, look at that. I think it's obliterated. All right.  Did he train before he destroys our train? Oh, what's up? Oh my god, he's not messing around Okay, I only have one oh he grabbed some wood That's what you get bro Shane move it That's what you get for not moving. Okay, can I grab the ammo here?  It's naturally. Okay, grab that. Okay. I have a bullet.  Dude, he literally had like a kitchen knife And I think we defeated him. Oh, dude, she's got a shotgun Bro, he no, don't let him leave.  Oh He's back Bro, he's back. It's full health. What's that? He was almost dead. Oh He was almost dead. What the heck? No, he's back with full health. That is not fair.  Oh my god, watch out man Okay, we have 20 seconds left on the timer. I think we're gonna make this Okay, I ran out of bullets again, can I just throw my gun at him? Okay, let me heal up. Actually, I don't think it matters at this point since we're about to arrive You got him back there man Okay, six five four three Okay, he's gone. Oh, he's back there Come on, dude, it takes forever to grab the ammo. Okay. Nice. You made it That was a chance Okay, so I believe we completed the first mission of the game Or first stop whatever you want to call it but as we've seen there was like about eight more stops.  What can we trade it for? Okay, I have a hundred tickets dude, I could buy your SP minigun Bro, I'm gonna buy that it's a fishing funds. It says I have a hundred all 220 Bruh, and we're traveling to the western watch posts. Okay, the danger is also low on this one I don't know if you can actually vote. I saw something about voting for the maps but In this case, we'll just uh, we'll just play whatever comes along. Oh Here he comes face yourselves.   Dude, where's it going? Choo-choo Okay, where'd he go? Oh? Bro chip. Oh my god.  I got him. Don't worry. I got the big guns. Oh my god Say hello to my little friend at work.  Oh My god, bro. He's trying to grab me. Oh my okay.  It shoots everywhere, but Like it shoots everywhere except him man. I want my money back And reload Okay, can actually amen Ha he's gone.  Oh, he's back already That was way too quick. I'm not even done looting Please don't die. I need to turn around Yo, okay reload. Oh my god, I have 50 health Halfway dead. Oh Yo, he's trying to snap me up again. It's not pretty quick this time Okay, let me actually heal up this time because I have not been healing up at all And we're getting very close to dying and he's back already Eager oh, do you freaking smack me? He sent me flying. Oh My god, what's that? I didn't know that was possible, dude All right, you guys well that we haven't that dude sent me freaking flying out of the car That was pretty cool. I can't wait to actually play the actual choo-choo Charles Which is gonna be pretty scary because I don't know if you guys have seen the trailer now It's like an actual freaking train spider that thing looks demonic as heck, dude And like I said, if you guys want to try to win a steam key for it, make sure to go check out two stars Twitter he's giving out free codes as I said earlier. And yeah, thank you all for watching I'll leave the link in the description if you guys want to play this game pretty awesome Shout out to the dev and yeah, see you guys in the next one. Peace


So this video talks a little bit more about motions in the mantle, and I made this for my physical sciences 152 course to kind of clear up some confusion and some gaps between the various resources we use. So let me start by talking a little bit about the mantle regions. Now depending on the textbook you look at it might mention two or three different regions of the mantle. There's the lithosphere which is the very very top of the mantle combined with the crust. The esthenosphere which is right below the lithosphere, and then the mesosphere. Now this particular diagram isn't necessarily to scale on everything, but the mesosphere is the larger section while the lithosphere is the thinner section. As we look at this diagram in a little bit enhanced view, and this diagram itself is on blackboard for my students, the lithosphere is listed as being a solid and a strong solid. So it's a very rigid solid that if you try to put pressure on it, it's going to break. And then for the mesosphere they just list it as solid, and for the esthenosphere it lists it as plastic, weak and deformable. Now where this really gets into play, and where some of the confusion comes in, is then when we talk about convection in the mantle. And this is an image from a different website, the Wikipedia, so it's one of the freely released ones here. And it shows that we have these convection currents in the mantle which sort of drags the esthenosphere, and this is responsible or the causing mechanism of plate tectonics. If you look up a definition of convection, it's the heat transfer through the motion of material, and the most common example is like a pot of boiling water, where you can actually watch the water roll in this rolling boil as you heat the bottom of it and that heat comes up through the edges. So this can cause a confusion here, because we've got something that's described as working like boiling water, but yet it was described as being a solid. So how does this work? And the thing is, is the mantle, both the mesosphere and the esthenosphere, are deformable solids. They don't flow like a liquid or a fluid would, but under a very great pressure, you're able to deform them and move them. So think of it more more similar, but not quite the same as if you've got a chunk of metal and a machine puts a great pressure on it, that metal will actually change shape. So there's great, great pressure and great temperature differences inside the earth that create great forces on the solid mantle that causes it to slowly, very, very slowly over time, have a motion to it. And this motion is then what causes the gradual creep of the esthenosphere causing the movement of that crust and the plate tectonics. So the diagrams and even the animations show this as being more like a rapid flow, but everything's sped up here. It doesn't flow like water or even flow like lava that you might have seen in videos of a volcano. Instead, these are solids, not liquids, that are moving only because of the very, very great pressure. I hope this helps clear things up for you. If not, continue to ask me questions to make sure that you have this concept and how it's different than the convection you might see in any other liquid or gas here on earth. We don't have the conditions here on the surface of the earth like is what's going on inside the earth.


Hey, so we have the pleasure of speaking with Deirdre Imus, president and founder of the Deirdre Imus Environmental Health Center at Hackensack University Medical Center. She's also the co-founder, co-director of the once Imus cattle ranch for Kids with Cancer. Deirdre, thank you for being here and taking the time out from sunny Texas to talk to us all the way out here in New York. Yeah, thanks, Tracy. So just so people who are listening know, we already had the pleasure of going to the center. It was so cool and so amazing. Your team there is so passionate about what you're doing. But you got to step back for us and tell us, how did this idea even start? This whole notion of greening the cleaning, your cleaning products, changing the world. How did it start? It started with working with all these children that have cancer and going back to my husband raising money for the Tomorrow's Children's Fund, which is an amazing organization at Hackensack University Medical Center that helps all these families and children that are diagnosed with cancer. And by working with these families and these children, I started to notice several things and also what causes cancer, because we do focus in this country on after someone gets cancer, what do we do, but not the root cause or prevention. And being in the hospital and thinking about all these kids that came to our ranch, which we started in 1998, my husband and I founded the Imus Caller Ranch for Kids with Cancer. And there, back in 1998, we were ahead of the curve with knowing that we wanted to eliminate any toxins possible. I just was very interested and really educated myself on a lot of those topics with pesticides and cleaning products and baby products, et cetera, the knowledge that I had back then, because so much has happened since then that we know a lot more. But you were kind of on the forefront of this. Did something happen? Did your son, Wyatt, and we're talking so everyone knows that your husband is Don Imus. Imus in the morning radio show, 770 WABC. But did Wyatt get sick? And you say, what the heck? Or did he have allergies? What was the catalyst that made you even get interested in this stuff? No. And thank God, that's not what happened. And yes, that usually is the story when someone finds an organization or does something. It really was just being aware and then seeing and working with the Tomorrow's Children's Fund and asking myself questions. And one of them was, they're in this hospital environment. Are hospitals, places of healing, are there physical environments, places that they can heal? And I quickly found out that no, they weren't. And this is all hospitals. It's the way they're set up. Frankly, no one had really thought about it. And so I asked about cleaning products, because I was already using non-toxic, which I call green now, that word green wasn't used back then.  And of course, in hospitals, because of infectious diseases and all the different patients and transfer of different things and how easy it is to spread disease, infections, viruses, et cetera, pathogens, do we really have to be using all those standard toxic cleaning agents that we've been using all these years, especially since the Industrial Revolution with all the chlorine bleaches and really toxic substances that are used in hospitals. And so I asked that question first, and I started doing my homework. And then I presented it really to Hack and Sack with the idea. My idea was, what if we could implement non-toxic or green products into hospitals? Wouldn't that be the highest level in our society to set an example for everyone in their home, businesses, schools, et cetera? If hospitals were saying, yes, it's right, and it's healthy to use these green products, but the key is, do they work as well?  And of course, now this is 16 years ago or more, 17 years ago, back in 2000, we started this, or I started this with the hospital. And we found that the green products were just as effective and sometimes even better. They worked as well, if not better. And we initially saw a cost reduction. So of course, anyone, bottom line numbers, budget numbers, that's always important for any business. And as soon as we saw that we were willing, we were able to save the hospital money too. So that's where the beginning of the genesis of which we called and we now have the greening, the cleaning program. And that started in 2001, spring of 2001, where we successfully implemented the entire campus at Hackensack. And they were the first. But did you march into, so Bob Garrett was the president at the time, right? Did you like just? I was the president at the time, John. And Bob Garrett was the VP though. And their decision to, and I, Bob Garrett is the president and CEO and co-CEO now, because now they've merged with Meridian Health Systems. So it's an even larger system in hospital. But they, from day one, when I went in and presented the information, totally understood and it totally made common sense. And if we can prove all this, then of course, then it's safe to implement. And that's really the beginnings. I mean, thank God we had leaders. And Bob Garrett's an incredible leader. And as you can see now, there's many, we've won practice green health, you know, for three or four years in a row now, I think it's three years in a row. One of the greenest hospitals, because we've now continued and built an entire environmental health center. And we're unique too, because we're the, one of the first hospital based programs to actually do this, which is very hard to do in a hospital. So out of the greening and the cleaning program came the Deirdre Imus Environmental Health Center. And it was originally called the Deirdre Imus Environmental Pediatric Oncology Center because we're focused specifically just on children with cancer, our mission. But then we realized there are, we have the sickest generation.  So, we expanded, but the mission stays the same from day one. And our mission is to identify control and ultimately prevent environmental toxins that may cause our children to be sick. So it just fundamentally makes sense. And how we apply that is through our education system, educational practices, our implementation, starting with greening and the cleaning, which we're successfully doing, not only in our own hospital, but in hundreds of other facilities like hospitals, businesses, schools, restaurants, you name it, you know, any public building, pretty much. And through our research as well. And that's really where it started. And it started with having strong leadership, seeing that vision that Bob Garrett sees and continues to see and how our environmental health center at the hospital is so successful. But I think it's a testament to you too, because look, you got in the door, right? Because of what you and your husband were doing with these kids to begin with. And you use that to your benefit.  I mean, you made them listen. And that's a huge testament to you. Thank you. Again, I ask, you know, be better. People were proactive too. I do advocate that.  Cause everyone knows someone around them.  These are all, the state of our children's health is what I call it. That's all the umbrella. Under the umbrella of where we are with our children. And this truly is the sickest generation because of our modern society really, the way we live and the toxins from everything from our food, our air, our soil, the way we grow food, the way we take care of our land and a lot in everyday products that we buy and bring into our home the way we build our homes and also through medicine, you know, where our children are literally being inundated and bombarded with these toxins, like constant hits, you know, and there comes a tipping point with everyone and it's not a one size fits all. And unfortunately that's the direction of where the solutions have been with medicine is, you know, a one size fits all and it really isn't. And the more I feel our center can focus on our mission with identifying those factors and then doing something about it, whether it's research or implementing a program, that's where I think it's successful because then we prevent our children from being exposed. And I wanna talk like what companies have done and what they're doing.  I mean, when I was there, there was this chalkboard and I felt like I was in, sorry, a whiteboard and I felt like I was back in physics class. And God bless the delightful young woman who tried to explain it all to me but there's some serious research going on. Can you give us an overview of what you're looking at over there? Yes, and that's really important to us. Erin and I, it was probably Erin and I at our center. She was brilliant. She's our, she is, she's brilliant. She's coordinated and been part of and published all of the research that we've done to date at our center. And it's been significant going back to something as simple as headlice, Tracy. I don't know if your kids ever got it and people don't wanna talk about it. But- My God, my son just had it like six months ago. He said he's almost 17. I want it to die. Well, see it's common. Six to 12 million children in this country get headlights. And it's not a fun or, you know, topic to talk about. And I don't know if you wanna reveal what treatments you did, but they're all toxic pretty much what the doctors recommend and what's out there on the shelves. They're very toxic.  And that is not good at all. I mean, it's an exposure that is more toxic and more harmful than the lice itself. And that doesn't make sense, right? Right. So potentially those have led to problems with children using these, you know, products. So we did a study that's peer-reviewed publish study that now we're trying to implement throughout all the pediatrics and get into something called the Red Book even, which is what pediatricians look at when they look for different remedies for things. It's kind of a protocol that they go by pretty much. And to get all those toxic products out, we showed with our study that you don't have to use those toxins in the product. We were actually using a product and it's completely benign and non-toxic and we proved that it works 100%. So the efficacy was even better than the extremely toxic products. So it's things like that that are like one little thing it seems like, but those, I call them hits, but those hits that your children receive as they're developing and growing, they end up having an impact. Whether ultimately your child has learning impairments or frankly lower IQ. A lot of these things are linked to this whole generation now with lower IQs, learning impairments, you know, the spectrum with Asperger's and autism and dyslexia. I mean, there's a whole spectrum here. And frankly, a lot of those asthma, allergies, they're in epidemic proportions. We've never seen it in any other generation what we're seeing now. And so that's why these things are so important to address and to get, you know, real change made. And that's really what the core of what we're doing. Well, I think the study she was trying to explain to me was about the BPA, the plastics that we use, right? And the BPAs and how harmful they are to women, especially when you're pregnant and things like that. And she even said the smallest little change, like get rid of the plastic water bottles. That's just one little change. It could make a huge difference. And it does. The thing with that though you bring up, and I'm glad you brought that up because that's an interesting thing that's happened. It's BPAs, BPAs, phenol A. It's an estrogen and hormone mimicar in the plastic. It's a chemical that's used. And it's, you know, ubiquitous in our society with all the, you know, food packaging, plastic wrapping, not just baby bottles or plastic bottles, but it's in so many food items and in products you buy for your home and cosmetics and personal care products, et cetera. So yes, we did that study to identify those levels. But what we found too is there are relatives of this chemical, BPA. And we found that even when the BPA was BPA free, you'll see in that whole movement that we helped educate the public about, they've replaced it with other chemicals that we found, and this is what our study was also helpful with, that are just as toxic. So the other part of this, it's important that when we identify a toxin and we're all saying, you know, let's not expose our children to it or we're trying to ban it or we're trying to change away, you know, a company's working because of the chemicals and we know what they're causing. There has to be a reality of an alternative, a healthier alternative. Otherwise, it really defeats the purpose, right? And that's why we go back to greening the cleaning all the time that's so successful because we did replace it with something that is so much healthier and works and is better than saying with the headlights published study that we did. So that's still something that's a dilemma, frankly, with the BBPA and the other, I call them cousins, chemical cousins are related that really affect our children the same way. But it's cause it's like going on a diet and taking out the chocolate cake by adding ice cream, right? It doesn't make, it's ridiculous, right? But at the same time, we're in this society, we're so busy, everyone's running around and the first thing you do is grab the first thing you see off the shelves and nine times out of 10, they're not really great for you. So then does the onus fall on the food companies, the Pepsi's of the world, the McDonald's, do we, it's up to them now.  And when you say food, the food industry, the food industry has really been hijacked by the agrochemical industry. So for example, if your diet is just grabbing those things in the grocery store and you have to have everyone's busy and they're not organic and they're not GMO free, meaning they're not, you don't want food that's genetically modified, which has glyphosate in it, which is a whole other subject about a chemical that is doing a lot of harm to all of us and our children, those are huge, huge companies that are driving this. And so we're no longer really eating healthy food. You really have to go to the source of eating as like whole food, fruits and vegetables and nuts and grains and seeds and truly look for the ones that are GMO free, non-GMO and organic. It's so important also to support then those farmers that are taking the time to have healthy practices so that we're not, this damages the soil too. There's soil evaporation, the soil has been ruined where there's so many heavy metals and contaminants in our soil that even to try to grow healthy food, it's very, very difficult now. In this country and around the world, because of these, the bigger picture, like you're saying, it's taken over on us. So that's a big part of this is- You make a great point here because like there's many farmers out there that won't grow healthy food because or corn or potatoes or whatever because they can't sell it, right? They're only growing things that they could turn around and I guess sell to the agri industry because at the end of the day, these farmers are, they're struggling to make ends meet. Yeah, and it goes against them. Don't you find it interesting that government will subsidize all the non-organic food, meaning the food that has poison in it and has grown poison? Don't you find that interesting? This all becomes very political. Food is extremely political and people need to wake up to that and really use their voice because in order to protect your children, you need to know this information in order to properly protect them. And that's a big part of it is these big industries are, they spend a fortune in DC with the lobbying companies. The lobby and that lobby is what drives the market. Those companies, those huge companies are the ones that dominate and it makes it very difficult for the organic farmers. But if they're gonna, why are they subsidizing all this? That's not healthy. Why won't you subsidize organic then? If you look at it, the government doesn't do any of those things, you know? So that's another huge issue, but there are big, big companies out there that it's unfortunate because they are really poisoning a generation of children. I'm not even being melodramatic about this. There's a lot of evidence to back all this up. It's counterintuitive though, isn't it? We're in the middle of a healthcare debate. Where our healthcare costs are through the roof and we can't seem to figure the system out. And yet what we should really be thinking about is the future and how we're going to keep kids, right, preventive medicine. I mean, John Scully, former Apple CEO the other day said, he bets that in 10 years no one's drinking soda anymore. I don't know, do you think that's true? Like do you actually think that it's a mindset? Because it's a mindset, isn't it? It is, and what would be his reason? Like what would they be drinking then? Just that soda has become so taboo and that the word is getting out that it's so bad for you. And this is a man who used to work for Pepsi, by the way. Well, I agree with him, by the way. I don't drink soda at all and I don't advocate anyone drinks soda. So I agree, but I have trouble seeing like how that's going to come true because these companies, the big companies like you just mentioned Pepsi and Coca-Cola and the rest of them, they dominate, they're enormous and what they do is then they morph into like they have water, right? But then they have flavored water and it's interesting that whole connection with soda. Not until the 1980s did they start adding the high fructose corn syrup to sodas. That made a huge difference because high fructose corn syrup also has levels of mercury in it and that obviously is extremely harmful. So there's been big changes in pharmaceuticals, vaccines of course, a huge issue. The food chain because of these huge agrochemical companies that are basically poisoning the food chain, this all has an effect and even something as simple as soda, now that you see they have like not only the diet sodas but then they make it appealing where it's zero calories. Well, you gotta look what's in that even.  So there are people- How do we combat this? I mean, we could even talk about the EPA and what's happening in DC now today with that. Do you worry about our next generation? I mean, these kids, I almost feel like the odds are stacked against them. Well, and they are when you look at the statistics of one in 60 children have autism and that's one in four boys, four to one boys ratio. Yeah, four to one boys, one in 60. In New Jersey, by the way, it's one in like 40 to 43 have autism. I know. And no one is, you don't see the government and these health leaders speaking out on that. In fact, there's a level of denial about it that you have controversy, well they'll claim that well autism was always there and it doesn't, no, no, no. I mean, I work with way too many organizations with all these families that have a child with autism. It is absolutely devastating. And when you have an epidemic, we know there are no, there's no such thing as a genetic epidemic. This is directly coming from, and you see the numbers where they've grown and where they are with these one in 60 across the board, across the country, that's a safe number to say, and they're much lower even in certain states, state by state, even county by county. There's something very wrong there because that's an environmental connection and there's a lot of denial going on with people at the top in the medical field. But is that, I mean, I'm in Jersey, right? So I mean, now I worry about my future grandchildren because thank God my kids are beautiful and fantastic but so what does that mean then? Does that mean it's the, is it in stuff in the ground? I mean, because then this is an EPA issue, big time, right? Is it in the ground? Is it in the air? How is this happening? Yeah, we all need to come together. It needs to be the EPA, the CDC, the NIH, even the Department of Defense, frankly. It's all connected, all of Washington, frankly, all the Senate and the House. This should be a priority. When you see numbers like that with autism, when you see a steady increase in pediatric cancer, not a decrease, when you see epidemic proportions with diabetes, obesity, ADD, ADHD, and then all prescriptions in the meds that children are put on at a very young age, that is completely abnormal. That to me is not how you treat a child in a healthy way. There's a certain level to me that it's negligence. And so the parents are left with, they have this beautiful child and then they get a diagnosis and then what do they do? And then they're relying on the system and the system, frankly, isn't coming clean and being honest about how they can prevent and not being a denial about some of these statistics and that we should come up with much healthier ways to help these children. And it's just across the board, it is not being done. There's way more damage being done. So what do we do? Like, I've kept you longer than I wanted to, we could talk all day, but what should people be doing? Other than just going to speak to my congressional leaders, which unfortunately feels like it gets me nowhere. What do we do? I know a lot of people think that, but then if you can join or work with an organization or even with our center, we do a lot of that. There's other organizations that are also down there lobbying health organizations, environmental organizations, children's advocates, but on another level, just as a parent, people need to get educated. They really need to take the time so they know the difference. Know about all the toxins or the pros and cons with your or eating an organic diet, first of all, let's start there. I mean, there's many studies done where children that were taken off a diet with quote conventional diet, which is a diet with pesticides, all the fruits and vegetables and all the food grown with pesticides versus that a child put on for several weeks an organic diet, they saw significant improvement in their cognitive skills, their IQ, their learning. That right there, just going and focusing on food says a lot. You can detox your body much healthier if you're much better if you are being exposed, which our children are, they're being inundated by all these. But the other thing is in your home too, use the non-toxic green cleaning products. When you use pest control, which everybody does, use integrative pest management. Don't let them come in and don't buy those cans of all those sprays that we know, they've been around forever, but I'm telling you they do a lot of harm to use integrative, like I use, we're on this ranch here, Tracy. And our imus ranch on 5,000 acres, all those years for 20 years taking care of those kids, completely green, we built it. We're on 5,000 acres with 40 horses and sheep and buffalo and chickens and donkeys and everything. And we've never sprayed any pesticides or insecticides or fungicides. Here in Texas, we're on this ranch here with 30 horses and cattle and everything else. And don't use any pesticides at all. There's no glyphosate being sprayed anywhere. And if we can do it in these environments, and I've done it in New York City and in an urban environment, it can be done and it is done. And people need to start seeing that they can go to our website too, but they should seek it out because the information is there. And start with yourself and start with your family. Like me sitting here, if I weren't, I can't advocate all these things. I'd feel like a phony if I weren't doing that myself. And I am and I've been doing it for years and I try every day, I learn something new every day and I try to make it healthier every day. But those fundamentals have to, it has to start there with the food and the pest control and the cleaning products in your home. And even if you're building a new home, being aware, like you saw the cotton denim insulation at the hospital when we built one of the first green hospitals there on the campus when you walked through there, all that that was green. Well, I implemented that into my homes too. So, you know, there are those things. We kind of paved the way for a lot of that. So, you know, if you're doing that in a hospital, humongous buildings that can't afford to make mistakes like that. And I think that says a lot. That's huge testimony and huge proof. But I think you said it earlier, it's cost effective now. Like it used, there used to be a time when buying organic was more expensive. It's actually not true. I see it myself firsthand. And you mentioned the hospital and people should really go watch the video because everything is recyclable. All the materials are recyclable. That there's denim in the walls that they're using as insulation, right? And the floor planks. And Kyle, I'm gonna say it's actually wrong. They're non-toxic, you know, with low or no VOCs which are volatile organic compounds that are highly toxic.  Even our vending machines, which you have them in depth to reality. So you have these vending machines where we were able to switch. I don't know if you saw it, Tracy. Kyle would have maybe shown you but walking me through everything but he got them to switch over to vending machines where it's all healthy snacks. You know, a lot of organic options in the little snacks that you can get from the vending machines rather than all that junk that you usually see. You know, even when you're visiting a hospital or you have a child in the hospital, you know, and that was the first thing I looked at and we looked at at the center was helping and working with a chef to design a menu for the women's and children's hospital that would truly give these children healthy but yummy, you know, like organic waffles, organic buckwheat pancakes with organic syrup and organic blueberries and strawberries. Something as simple as that versus what they would be eating. You know, that's the difference. It's totaled. Oh my God, of course. Not to mention, you have to watch too. We got to see how they make honey right on the premises and our intrepid camera guy went out there and was like in the middle of the bees, it was the coolest thing. All this stuff is fresh and fabulous and we mentioned Kyle Tefori and he actually was named one of the 30 under 30 people to watch in sustainability, which is so cool. And you mentioned that it's part of them, Hackensack is part of the Meridian Health Services now.  Are you guys eventually gonna take this model on the road and say, try to get Columbia and try to get NYU and other hospitals like in the area or around the country to do what you're doing? Yes, yes, we're open to that. I mean, again, our team is small.  And we're a small and Aaron, our researcher, like I told you, Aaron Eyde and Kyle of course and Loray and then Jim and Nadine, I don't know if you met them, they're the ones in charge of the greening the cleaning. They're the ones that the business of our greening the cleaning is successful. I credit the two of them, Jim Rocky and Nadine DeBruggio. So, and that's all what's interesting about our model is it's not for profit, of course. We're a 501c3 under the hospital and we're a department in the hospital. And when we implement, that's one way we sustain our center is through our greening the cleaning program. It pays to run all the whole program itself and then to run the center. So we're a small team, but I always say we're small but mighty. So there's nothing frivolous and each person is maximized at the center. They're focused, they're super smart. They're specialists in what they do at the same time and everyone is completely passionate about what they're doing. And it's a handful of people directly in the center that of course we have, we work with lots of people in the hospital. So that's another thing that, we're not this huge center with this huge budget and this huge, all of these people that you need. And it shows you too, I think by example that you can be that change. You are, you're right.  Georgia, before I let you go, can you tell us like the website and like where everyone can come to buy products and to get more information? Yes, our website is environment, I'm sorry, imisenvironmentalhelp.org. So it's imis, my name, imisenvironmentalhealth.org. Everything is there. You can get the products there. You can get tons of information there. It comes back up as soon as you Google in imis, you'll see it, it'll come right up imisenvironmentalhealth.org. And then yeah, you're right. It has everything there. It's easy to navigate our website. We have a whole thing with all the latest studies and just the latest articles out. That's a fun part where you just click on that like the green news of the day and we constantly have keep parents and educators up to date on all the different articles that are out there about everything to do with children's health and the environment. Everything from vaccines to food to pesticides to how to build a better green home so your kids can be raised in a healthy environment, which all of those things are really important. But it's actually not that hard Tracy. Nowadays it's not, right? Because it is much harder when I did it because when we founded the ranch I was pregnant with white in 1998. In fact, I feel like he inspired us to do all this really. But it's much easier now because there is more access and there's more available to make that change happen. And like you were saying, the cost is there, it's not. And that's one thing I wanna make a note of. When you say, oh, people go on organics more, it's more to do this or that and they complain and I'm thinking, no, it's not.  So you gotta weigh that, doesn't it make sense? It's preventative, you're right. It's a great, great way to look at it. I hope everybody goes and checks out the site at least by the cleaning products do something. And I think you made the best point is that it just starts at home, starts small. And if you start to raise people who believe this way, then it actually does change the mindset because when they get out into the world, that's the way they'll think and then hopefully they'll spread the good word. Yeah, by example, always. You're great. Thank you so much for taking the time. It's so good to see you. Tracy, thank you so much. Thank you, this is a privilege to be able to do this. I look forward to seeing it, yeah. It was great, thank you so much. Thank you.


like they don't even exist. Okay, coming up next, I got a clip from the John Stossel show and Stefan Kinsella is gonna join me to talk about intellectual property. America grants certain rights to creators of songs, books, movies, paintings. The idea is to encourage the creation and proliferation of new ideas by providing a brief and limited period of exclusivity. I'm an intellectual property attorney and you've still in my client's melody. You can be sued and found liable for monetary damages. And yet, some of you watch my show and you too. That's stealing. And that's our show tonight. That was the voice of John Stossel last week as he discussed intellectual property and one of the guests on the show was patent attorney and libertarian writer Stefan Kinsella who joins me now. Stefan, thanks for joining me today. How are you? I'm very well, glad to be here. Yeah, I thought it was very encouraging actually that the John Stossel show decided to take on this issue. Of course, he leans libertarian, but he has pretty much a mainstream audience, I think. And so you were part of that segment, but I wanna talk about the segments that preceded you.  And I thought it was very interesting because they started with a utilitarian argument. John Stossel framed it this way and they brought up, I would say over the course of the show, five different examples, perhaps there are some that I missed, but five or six and the ones that I remember are magic tricks, music, fashion, TV, literature and comedy. And the interesting thing about those were three of them are protected by IP three or not. And if you don't really think about these things you wouldn't really know which ones were because there's so much innovation in all six areas. Correct. Yeah, the show was a very good show, I think. I was very heartened that they had it. I mean, to have a mainstream show deal with IP policy from a libertarian perspective, I think it's probably the first time it's ever been done. And I give Stossel credit for being open-minded and I think he's leaning in our direction. He did say he wasn't sure where the line should be. He wants there to be some IP, but he recognized that it's not always necessary and he recognized lots of problems with it. The interesting thing about the show I found out after I was there is that each of the segments had different producers. So it's just a big operation. And I was actually contacted twice by two producers independently. So I was contacted for my segment and then a few days later I was contacted by the other producer for that first segment which was a debate, but I said, I'm already gonna be on the show. And he said, well, who else can we get? And I said, well, here's three or four really good free market anti-IP people including David Kepsel who was the guy that appeared on the first segment. And so they took him because he's very similar to me. In fact, he and I are co-editing a book later this year on sort of a collection of anti-IP but free market writings over the centuries and decades. So we're working on that together right now. But yes, Stossel show, the first segment was a debate between an IP attorney from California and Kepsel. And then there was the other guests other than me and Kepsel were not really anti-IP but the points that they were brought out to make I think were ended up supporting my side because you had Chris Brigman who was talking about how the fashion industry thrives in the lack of copyright protection and in the face of piracy and copying if you wanna call it piracy. And then there was a comedian who showed that you really can't get protection for magic tricks with standard copyright and patent but the community has a way to self-enforce people who sort of take credit for others tricks. And the same in the comedian industry there was that comedian Doug Stanhope who's a libertarian comedian who was the last guest. So I thought it was a really balanced and good show overall and pretty much predominantly anti-IP. And a couple of the points that were raised I thought they were excellent point, the fashion expert. He basically said that these high profile leading edge fashion designers, they actually benefit from copying. And you wonder if those leading fashion designers could even exist or enjoy the trend-setting position that they do without copying. It seems like their position is almost reliant on copying. And then the example of the literature basically talking about the anti-copyright I guess or the lack of IP in the US resulted in so many people gaining access to literature and becoming literate because of it. Well, not only that, they gave a great example of Dickens who was upset at first, if I remember the story correctly, that his work was being pirated widely in the US because copyright protection at the time did not apply to works of foreign authors. And he was dismayed by it, but it made him so popular over here that he was able to come over here and go on this big speaking circuit because he was famous and revered. And he made so much money on that trip from speaking that it constituted a large share of his estate when he died actually. And so that was the discussion and then the pro IP person in the debate. He almost immediately conceded the utilitarian argument by just shifting focus almost immediately to the morality aspect. And I think the problem here, you might disagree, but I've seen it before where you can win an argument and I think we did so convincingly here, even just by letting this person talk, I think, was enough because he switched to the morality play. But then he talks about the different aspects of how you would have to enforce IP, even in the absence of actual legislation. He talks about Shakespeare helping to close down theaters violently. Stossel says, what do you do?  Right, he kind of exposes the thuggery behind it really and that it's really censorship. And of course this guy, it's a case of special pleading. I think he's a patent or he's an IP attorney. So of course he has an interest in the system. So he's really didn't have the most credibility on the show. The other guests didn't really get to talk about the morality on the other side. So we didn't have time. It was more utilitarian focus, but I thought one of the most damning things that the guy said, which we could have explored was, they were talking about, I think it was a George Harrison song, My Sweet Lord or something like that. Yes. That has like a very small clip in it that it resembles some older song. And I think there was a settlement or something like that. But basically the IP lawyer said, yeah, he was infringing other people's copyright when he did that. And if you take that logic to the extreme, what that means is if copyright had been enforced properly, we would never have had that song. In other words, the original person whose tune was sort of being borrowed as part of the background in that song could have vetoed that song. And we wouldn't have one of the most beautiful pop songs in history to grace humanity with. It could have ended up stopping it. At least the copyright lawyer could argue for some kind of non-injunction regime where you can always do what you want. You might have to pay a little bit of a tax later, some kind of damages, but they don't argue for that. They want the copyright holder to be able to stop people from doing things. In fact, this has been done before. People don't realize that in the US, there was a judge that literally banned the publication of a book, which was a sequel to Catcher and the Rye because it was a derivative work and not authorized by the estate. He just said, no, you just can't publish this book. It wasn't even like you can publish it and then you might have to pay damages. You just can't publish it. That's outright book banning by the state. Copies of this German film, Nosferatu, a vampire film, were ordered destroyed and seized and destroyed and just erased from the face of the earth because it was supposedly a knockoff of Dracula or something like that. So this kind of book banning and censorship of ideas is literally the result of these systems. And in my view, this is just the tip of the iceberg because as important as music and culture and art are to society, I mean, there are other things too, scientific discovery, health breakthroughs, things like that, things that could actually literally save lives that could be banned because of IP. Oh, and that actually is happening and does happen. There are literally people that have died because of patents. I mean, to take a simple example, there are various patents on seat belt mechanisms and safety mechanisms in cars. And if one manufacturer gets a patent on it, they can prevent others from using a similar lifesaving mechanism. And so others have to design around. And there are drugs. There's a drug called, and I have it on my website, c4sif.org. If you look up, just go to my site and look up Faberzyme, F-A-B-R-A-Z-Y-M-E. It's a drug that treats, I think it's called Fabri's disease. It's one of these weird debilitating diseases and people can die from it. There's only one type of drug that apparently works and there's one manufacturer in the US that has a patent on it. And they can't make enough. Now, this was a few years ago. I don't know where it's resulted, but there's two drugs in Europe that work, but they can't be imported here because of FDA regulations. So there's only one here. And we were shipping this one to the Europeans because the market was better for some reason. So there was a shortage and no one else could make it here because of the patent. And we couldn't import the alternative drug because of the FDA regulations. So you have all these patients in America suffering from Fabri's disease, unable to buy legally the drug from the manufacturer and no one else could make it. So it's really killing people. So it seems like the moral argument is also a slam dunk. And when the pro IP attorney was confronted with basically the coercion that takes place to implement and enforce these laws, he says, well, I don't shut anyone down in their workshop. I do it in a courtroom as if that legitimized the whole process. Yeah, it's like they think hiding the fangs makes it like they're not there. They're just hiding the wolf's fangs. But I'd almost rather an honest, it's like the Spooner quote about the highwaymen versus the state.   And it's a one-time deal. But the state always pretends like they're doing you a favor and they never let you go. Doing it through the courts almost makes it worse and institutionalizes it. And it's so expensive to defend from these suits that bullying is a big part of it. There are copyright trolls and patent trolls and they go around extorting money from people even when they arguably have a good defense against the patent infringement or the copyright infringement, but they know that they don't wanna go through a two or three or $4 million lawyer legal fees just to defend themselves and to win. So they cough up half a million dollars or something like that or $100,000 to make them go away. And there are estimates that in, I think since around 1990 to about five years ago when this study was done over about a 2015, 25 year period, estimates that patent trolls alone had extracted half a trillion dollars. And I think the latest trend I'd seen was about $80 billion a year in recent years. So patent trolls are taking about 80 to $100 billion a year in royalties from companies all across the US probably often based upon just a threat of an expensive lawsuit that they might not even be able to win. Now that's just patent trolls. There's also real patent lawsuits from non-trolls which are probably 10 times bigger than that. So we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year are just taken from companies or that impose that much cost in terms of lost innovation or lost competition or increased prices because there's less competition and more oligopolies and cartels. So the cost of the patent system in terms of dollar costs and innovation costs is gargantuan. I like that they brought in the issue of basically corporate interests. And one of the gentlemen brought up, it could have been Stossel actually brought up the case of I think it was Snow White that Disney or someone had received a copyright on that story or something like that. And so you can't tell the story anymore. And then this is something that they actually had extended as well. Can you explain that? Yeah, I guess and it gets a little complicated because of the way copyright law works and because most people that aren't really deep experts in this field get confused by it which is understandable even Stossel on his show even with all the, in fact everyone on the show I believe except for the comedian was a lawyer. They didn't say that but everyone was a lawyer. David Kepsel has a law degree. He's a philosopher, the law professor of course and me. And also the magician apparently has a law degree. I was wondering about that. He seemed very knowledgeable. He did, I was surprised. And then later on I looked at his bio and he's like, oh, he's like he a polymath kind of guy. But in any case, but even Stossel kind of mixed up trademark and copyright and patent at one point in one of his little monologues. And the term in copyright, the way it works and the copyright lawyer in the beginning sort of alluded to this, but basically Disney took a story that's in the public domain which was the German folk tale of Snow White or whatever and they made their own version of it. And that's basically a derivative work of a public domain work. So the copyright is held by Disney and it's in the new derivative work but it really wouldn't prevent someone from making their own Snow White. However, Disney might sue them for trademark infringement if they used the word Snow White because they probably also claim trademark in that term. But the hypocrisy if you wanna call it is Disney was using things that are in the public domain to make a new work that they got a copyright on. And the work was in the public domain only because copyright doesn't last forever or because those works were created so long ago before copyright existed. But Disney keeps lobbying Congress to extend the term of copyright. Every time one of their major characters like Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain. They did this in the 90s with the Sunny Bono copyright term extension and gave Mickey Mouse yet another life. The US is now at life of the author plus 70 years or it's a different term for corporate works but that's roughly the term. Most, a lot of the other parts of the world only have life of the author plus 50 years. So the US is now using this TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership which is allegedly a trade agreement, right? Meant to lower barriers to trade and the countries that it's negotiating with we already have pretty much low barriers to trade. So really this is meant to extend US style IP protection and I believe just in the last couple of days I think Canada has agreed finally and probably some of the other countries too that are part of this TPP negotiation to go ahead and add 20 more years to the term of their copyright from 50 to 70 after the life of the author to match the US term. And I guarantee you that in a few years when some of these other characters start expiring or entering the public domain you're gonna have strong pressure on Congress to make it life of the author plus 90 years. So they keep, it basically makes it in perpetuity. They've even done this before for works that have entered the public domain and then they get Congress to change the law and make it retroactive. So you've had works and characters that have entered the public domain because the copyright term finally expired. Then Congress passes an extension of the copyright term and it snatches something that was already public domain and puts it back into the copyright coverage. It's crazy. Okay, and now we get to your segment basically because now we're talking about what this is really about and you made a great point that I wish you guys had time to elaborate on because it's also someone brings up the issue of property rights and he says as libertarians this is something that we feel very strongly about property rights. You made an interesting point. You said, look, I'm a libertarian. I value property rights probably more than anyone else, definitely more than conservatives and property rights never expire. Yet patents and copyrights and these things do expire. So that should be a hint as to what's really going on here. So Stefan, what's really going on here? Right, and I do think that was a good point to make because I could make it very shortly and it gave people time to think but I didn't have time to elaborate as much. I actually did talk more about that but they cut some of that out for time reasons. But, and Tom Bell makes this point, by the way, in his book on intellectual privilege. And most supporters of IP don't want it to last forever. So even they, I mean, you could overcome this sort of contradiction or this inconsistency by saying, well, then IP rights should last forever just like regular property rights do. And a few people do advocate that like Lysander Spooner actually believed it and Gallambos did, Alexander Gallambos, Andrew Gallambos, sorry, two libertarians who supported IP. Most libertarians who support IP, even the non-utilitarians like Ayn Rand, even she thought that they should only last for a certain amount of time. And her argument as to why they should last 17 years or 70 years or whatever is so contorted and so sort of reverse engineered to justify this arbitrary rule that Congress passed. That's actually what made me a skeptic in the first place. Reading Ayn Rand's contorted convoluted attempts to justify this arbitrary copyright and patent term. As Tom Bell points out, the founders who were favor of copyright and patent, that's why they put this clause in the Constitution, they never did treat them as property rights. They never thought they were property rights. And that's exactly why the Constitution says Congress can enact these rights for limited times. It was just supposed to be like a temporary infringement into the market to induce more innovation and otherwise what happened, et cetera. So as a utilitarian basis, they weren't considered to be property rights by the founders. They were never considered to be property rights. They were called monopoly rights or they were called privileges. In fact, Thomas Jefferson proposed an amendment that was going to be included in the Bill of Rights, which he tried to limit how long these terms could be. And he had a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which would have been in the Bill of Rights, which was rejected. But it would have said something like, Congress shall have the power to grant monopolies to inventors and artists, but only for X years. So he wanted them to put a term in there, like 15 years or 40 years or something. He wanted a maximum cap in there, but he called them monopolies because that's what they are. Now he was in favor of them with hesitation, with misgivings, but he didn't think that they were property rights. None of the founders did. It wasn't until the free market economists in the mid-1800s started really opposing the growing threat of patents and copyrights and calling them monopolies and privileges and protectionism and censorship that the defenders of IP who were now, in fact, it wasn't called IP at the time, it was just called patent and copyright or monopolies. They started referring to them as property rights as a propaganda campaign to defend these rights. So they just made this term up to appeal to people's natural sympathy towards property rights, but they're not property rights. Of course, property rights don't expire. They've done an excellent job at that propaganda. Now overall, I would say this was a great episode and I'm glad they did it, but in the end, there was a little bit of disappointment at the end where Stossel basically says, look, it takes money. He used his own show as an example. Takes money to put on show like this. I employ many people. There's a lot of capital involved. I don't know if we'd do it if we didn't have copyright. And so in the end, he falls back on this, basically this tired defense of IP, which is basically utilitarian, but it's personal utility. IP works for me and therefore I support it. Although to be honest, I think, well, I think he moved in our direction. He seemed to nod at some of my points. I think actually he may be more on our side than he led on. I think he feels compelled to take his employer's side, which is Fox, which is a big media empire, which thinks that it relies upon copyright. I actually think they're probably wrong about that, but they think that they need copyright. So he even said he likes when people pirate his show on YouTube. He personally likes it, but he's worried about whether his employer likes it. So you can see he's got this sort of conflict of interest almost. If I had had time, I would have pointed out two things to him. Number one, I would have said as a really principled libertarian, with a principled view towards property rights, I would have said, look, if there's a certain business model that cannot make sense absent copyright law, then unfortunately that business model has to go. That's the bottom line. It's just like antitrust law or taxes. If people want to collude and set prices on the free market, they have the right to, even if they could. I don't think they could in most cases because there's too much competition to permit that. But bottom line is people have the right to do what they want with their own property rights. The same thing here. But I would also argue that I don't think they really need copyright to make a profit. He can still have a show. He can have advertisers. Maybe he wouldn't make quite as much money on the secondary and tertiary streams of income because there would be more and more competition for that. But they would have a reputation. They'd have a channel. They'd have good quality content. They'd be reliable. People would still sell ads. People make ads now on the internet with popular websites, even though piracy and copying of their content is possible. Why is that possible? So just because someone hasn't yet figured out a business model that would work in a copyright free world doesn't mean we need to have copyright. People need to adapt to a just property order rather than a property order adapting to the business models people are used to. Yeah, these are all great points. And it's basically the basics of a free market and just society, right? The producers and the businesses adapt to the markets, not the other way around. And in business, think about technology and other things. We solve so many more difficult problems than how to have a product without someone copying it. I mean, the problems that we solve are so much more difficult than that. If we just put a little bit more of our resources into figuring out how to secure the profit, I don't think we would have to rely on these laws. And not to mention all of the money that's wasted as it stands on internal legal teams and whatnot. I just think it's a slam dunk. But the work is not done, Stefan. So I think you're gonna have to go back on that Stossel show and just work on John a little bit more. He is doing a great job. I think you're right. And he's got an obligation to his employer. So that was a good point too. But it wouldn't hurt if you could get on there again and maybe sway things a little bit more in our direction. Well, I would never turn down a trip to New York. I tell you, that's a lot of fun. All right, thanks for joining me, Stefan. And I hope you'll come back again. I really wanna get into that TPP issue because that is a very important issue. And I think not a lot of people know about that. So please, thanks for joining me. And I hope you'll come back again. Be happy to do it. Thanks a lot. And that is the economy for Friday, February 6th. My thanks to Stefan Kinsella for joining me today. Please visit his website at cforsif.org. That's C, the letter for S-I-F dot O-R-G. If you have a question or comment, please send it along to questionatpowerandmarket.com where you can tweet at Albert K. Liu. Thanks for joining me today. I'm Albert Liu. Until next time, take care. The economy was brought to you by WB Wealth Management, an independent fee-based financial advisory firm and the Woodlands Bullion Company, your exclusive source for precious metals. Visit us online at wbadvisors.com. The economy is produced by WB Wealth Management in cooperation with Mixingnell Innovations, LLC. This program is intended for informational purposes only and is not an offer to buy or sell securities or alternative investments.