So, we would continue with our discussion on the contemporary development in France. What I was trying to emphasize was that it was actually the need of the contemporary society at that time to work towards the identification of towards the well-being of people who were considered as feeble minded or mentally retarded. And therefore, it was the intervention from the part at the part of the government that a commission was you know constituted the commission request Binet and Simon to be instrumental in developing a psychological tool. So, all I am trying to say is that had that need not been there in the contemporary society had the government not become proactive at that time probably this major milestone would not have reached psychology at that point in time.  This landmark you know assessment tool was once again you know that in 1905 this came. In 1905 Binet-Simon when he came forward with his scale it had 30 tests. I am just giving you the sample items here. For example, the first one was follows a moving object with the eye. Second item grasps a small object which is touched. Item number 28 for example, reverses the hands of a clock. Item number 29 after paper folding and cutting draws the form of the resulting holes. Now, interestingly Binet-Simon scale did serve the purpose of assessment of severe mentally retarded to high level of gifted children. But an important thing needs to be looked at that Binet-Simon did not give the method of computing the total score. So, that is an interesting thing usually in psychological measures you finally have a total score. So, that was not provided. And just three years later 1908 Binet-Simon revised their scale. So, now instead of 30 the revised version had 58 tests. They also introduced the concept of mental level and of course, a scoring method was also proposed. So, that way it is again another milestone towards making psychology a scientific discipline. It is not only assessment. It is actually testing the mental level of the participant and it is also about the method of scoring a particular psychological tool. So, this is an interesting development in that way. In 1911, the third version of the Binet-Simon scale came and now instead of being useful only for children, now the scale was extended to the adult age range also. And a new method of scoring was introduced unfortunately Binet died in that year, so 1911. But then just the following year that is 1912, Stern suggested the concept of computation of IQ by dividing the mental age by the chronological age. And in 1916 Binet-Simon scale was further revised at Stanford University by German and his associates. And now the present formula was provided and this formula was what is being used now where you have M A upon C A into 100. So, that was the technique that came forward at that time. But what is interesting to know is 1905 Binet and Simon comes forward with his tests. And if you look at the revision that has taken place, the latest revision of the Stanford Binet test was done in 2003, so that is an interesting development you can see. Another development that took place in US, till now we were talking about how from France this whole test moved to the US. Another interesting development that took place in the US was that in 1906 the Vineland training school in New Jersey, they asked Goddard to study classification and education of feeble minded children. And Goddard, his reference point was the Binet and Simon scale that was developed in 1908, 1905 and then the first revision, so that was the reference point for Goddard. What was interesting was that to suit the need of the Vineland training school, the original French scale was translated into English. So translation and in 1910, when Goddard was further asked by the departments of immigration to examine the immigrants in the Ellis Island, this original French test which was translated into English was further translated into Yiddish, Hungarian, Italian, Russian and other languages. But what was very interesting to note was that you have a French test, the test is translated into English, the test is translated into few more languages to suit the need of the Ellis Island, but the reference that was used for interpretation, the norm that was still the French norm. So technically speaking, when you look at scales where you have certain norms on the basis of which you interpret your raw score, you realize that although in terms of development of scale, psychology had made a big jump. In terms of translation, yes, very big change had come into being, but in terms of adaptation of the test, this was still an issue and which norm to be used technically speaking was still a question where psychology was lagging behind. Now, let me make an attempt to connect the past to the present. Many psychologists felt the need for a non-verbal test and I am sure many of you must have seen the Swigin form board in your labs, where actually there were impressions, where 10 different blocks can be fitted on your screen you can see, different forms are there and these were the impressions where blocks can be fitted. Now, Swigin form board test was actually not developed as a test, rather it was simply developed to train people with mental retardation, the children with mental retardation. But then Goddard, who was actually working with the feeble mindedness, who had used a 1908 version of the B. N. Simon scale, who was also instrumental in translating it into multiple languages, because of the need of the immigrants at the Ellis Island, he now developed Swigin form board in the form of a test and then little later it was Sylvester, who standardized it in 1913. So, even non-verbal test, test of performance you realize that standardization of such test also started taking place in psychology. Now, Swigin form board test you will find in most of the labs, all schools uniformly even till date if you visit the special schools for the mental retardates children with autism children with CP, you would realize that these tests are being used. Interestingly, if you refer to the development in neuropsychology and if you look at the Halstead-Reiter neuropsychological battery, which actually makes an attempt to localize the neurological damage, you can identify using this test. Now, of the 10 sub test of the Halstead-Reiter neuropsychological battery, you find tactual performance test and on your screen you see how much resemblance is there between the Seguin form board test and the tactual performance test of Halstead-Reiter neuropsychological battery. So, you find that past and present they both exist together and the heavy influence of the past and the present. Now, after Godard's work in the Ellis Island, it was Knox, who developed several performance test for the Ellis Island immigrants. And of these tests, there were wooden puzzles and digit symbol substitution tests. Now, you find that these two things are still available when you look at the Weschler's adult intelligence scale. So, Weschler's intelligence scales, which is recent development in certain sense, that it is with all those revisions, it is one of the widely used tests in psychology. You can again relate it that Godard's work, Ellis Island form board, then wooden puzzles, digit substitution test and then how you can again link it to the Weschler's intelligence scales. Another interesting thing was that Pinter and Peterson, they developed a 15 performance test comprising of the form boards, puzzles and object assembly test. You all know course block design test. You also know that in psychology, we do use the maize tests. Now, Stanley Portiers, he did develop the maize test in 1915. Course block test was developed in 1920. Pinter and Peterson, they developed their 15 part performance test in 1917. And you find that course block test, the maize test, they are still available in psychology, they are still being used. The new test of course, in psychology that you find, they are always validated with respect to their correlation with these tests that we have referred to. And this way, you find a strong bond between the past and the present in terms of techniques, in terms of tools and in terms of standardization of their psychological tools. We go back to the US. Pile gets the credit for developing the first group test in 1913. Now, remember that 1905 when the first formal test came into being a big jump. It was supposed to be administered to a single individual and now comes in 1913, the group test. Now, the battery consisted of memory span, digit symbol, substitution and oral word association. Pintner revised Pile's battery and added the time cancellation test. If you go back to Europe, there was again an attempt in terms of developing projective approach towards psychological assessment and the famous word association test came into being. Again, word association test that we see is the contribution of Carl Gustav Jung. But then you can trace it back to Francis Galton who was instrumental giving this concept and then Wound and Cripplain who further evolved this very concept. And then Jung in Sweden finally came forward with it in 1910 and the same year the word association test was taken back to the US by Kent and Kosanov. But meanwhile, a big change took place in the history of humankind. In 1917, US interned World War I and they had 1.75 million recruits. One of the psychologist Robert Yerkes, he convinced the US government that they should administer intelligence test to all the recruits and the purpose was very simple that on the basis of their performance on the intelligence test, these recruits can be classified and they can be assigned certain specific tasks. The government was convinced and you would be amazed to know that Yerkes finally was included in the armed forces at the rank of colonel. So, he joined the armed forces and he constituted a committee and interestingly the members of his committee included Goddard and Terman. Both of them had already established their credentials by that time in psychological assessment. Now, the outcome of this exercise of Yerkes was the popularly called army alpha and army beta test. Now, army alpha had 8 verbal tests for average and high functional personnel, which included following oral directions, arithmetic reasoning, practical judgment, synonym, antonym pairs, disarranged sentences, number series completion, analogies and information. Whereas, army beta was a nonverbal test for illiterates and non-English speaking personals and it largely included visual perceptual test and motor test. Now, army alpha and army beta was a big jump in some sense in the area of test construction. By this time, psychologists had proven to various governments in France and in US, both the places, repeatedly psychologists succeeded convincing the society and the government that they can be of importance. They can serve the basic purpose that is actually needed at their time, contemporary need of the society, contemporary need of the government with all due scientific rigor, it can be achieved. So, this was that way a big jump. The end of the World War I saw interesting demand in the area of industry and education both. Now, group testing in the army influenced the National Research Council, which was a government organization of scientists to develop the national intelligence test. And interestingly, the national intelligence test was administered to 7 million children in the US during the 1920s. It also influenced the development of Bessler's intelligence scale, scholastic aptitude test and the popular graduate record exam, the GRE. For the purpose of testing, college applicants who were interested in getting admissions, college entrance examination board CEEB was also established. And CEEB was instrumental in the development, standardization and validation of the test that you see right now, such as the graduate record examination, the law school admission test and the peace cops entrance tests. Group testing in the army also influenced the development of Bessler's intelligence scale and the scholastic aptitude test. You find thrice Bessler intelligence scale has been referred. So, you can see how development is gradually influencing successive developments in the time frame. Now, interesting developments started taking place. In the 1930s, machine scoring was introduced, remember earlier you needed a psychologist to score. Now, you have machine scoring coming back as early as 1930s and the major change that took place in the allied domains was that all these contemporary developments in psychology started challenging the statisticians. So, many new techniques in the statistics developed and one of the major important developments that took place was the emergence of factor analysis as a technique. From US, we now again go back to Europe, where Herman Rosha in Sudan came forward with the inkblot test, which is what is now popularly called Rosha inkblot test and this test came back as early as 1920. Similarly, Morgan and Murray, they came forward with the popular test what is called as TAT, long back in 1935. Now, you go to any clinic, clinical psychology, psychiatrists and you would find Herman Rosha's inkblot test being used, invariably in many recruitment processes you find TAT being used. Not only for the civil purposes, even defense recruitment, the set of psychological test that they used for recruitment, there you find TAT being used. Another major milestone, I would say usually it is ignored when we talk about the history of psychology was that you need a formal platform, where you will have these psychological assessment tools being made available to others. And again, if you look back at the history, you would realize that in 1921, Cattail, Thondike and Woodworth, all three prominent psychologists, they founded the psychological corporation and this corporation was the first test publisher. Now, of course, you have a large number of test publishers, you also have large number of houses, which are involved into it.  We now come back to India and in this session, I am primarily trying to conclude now that although all these developments primarily were centered either in Europe or in the US, although we historically test it back to China, but the major developments took place only in Europe and US. But let me share with you the developments that took place in India, in 1922, remember 1905 was the time that we are saying that this is the major milestone in psychology, Vinay Simon skill coming into existence. 1922, Indian psychoanalytic society was founded by Green Shaker Bose and this society in 1924 got affiliated to the international psychoanalytic society. All this is pre-independence, so again of course, a big achievement in certain sense. This back as 1923, you find that in Indian Science Congress, psychology was included as a section. The first association that is the Indian Psychological Association was founded long back in 1924 and the first Indian Journal of Psychology came in 1925. So, these are interesting developments, year after year one significant change. Then 1938, Calcutta University started the Applied Psychology Wing and the same year, you find that Jung, Meyers and Spearman, all three of them came to India to attend the Silver Jubilee session of the Indian Science Congress. So, that way, India could get connected to the western world and in 1947, the year when India got independence was also the year when the second Journal of Psychology that is Samic Shah that was published. Now, post-independence, you find two, three interesting things that took place. 1947, we became independent, but independence was achieved at the cost of mass influx of refugee because of the communal riot. In 1950, the Ministry of Education hired the services of Gardiner Murphy to investigate the causes of these communal violences and several Indian collaborators were there. And finally, this work was published in the form of a book. In 1953, the book was titled in the Minds of Men. You will find long description of all this, right from Grinshaker Bose to the edited volume by Gardiner Murphy in the next talk, where Prof. Rajid Dalal would be talking about all these historical developments at length. In 1950, the Ahmedabad Textile Industry Research Association, ATIRA, that was established and very interestingly, you will find that Erikson and McClelland, they were the frequent visitors to this institute. So, initially, you found that Jung, Meyers and Spearman coming to India to attend the Silver Jubilee congregation of the Indian Science Congress and again Erikson and McClelland, you can find them in India, but one of the remarkable development that took place in India was this publication, The Psychology of Rumour, a study relating to the great Indian earthquake of 1934. Jajunath Prasad at Patna published this work in 1935 in the British Journal of Psychology volume 26, first issue and what he did was that he did the content analysis of the rumours that followed the major earthquake and he found that most of these rumours were actually anxiety inducing and this justified fear of the earthquake victims. What is very interesting to find that this very work of Jajunath Prasad actually inspired the whole conception of the idea of cognitive dissonance theory by Festinger. So, a very remarkable theory in psychology, the cognitive dissonance theory has its root in India and another interesting thing you will also find is that the communication that took place between Erikson and Mahatma Gandhi and later on Erikson came forward with this book, Gandhi's Truth. Primarily, you will find a rare piece why because you have the psychoanalysis of a stalwart, the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi and the socio-political process and one of the established schools of thought in psychology psychoanalysis. So, how psychoanalytic technique can be used to understand an individual and also a process. So, that is an interesting contribution that India has made to psychology at large. Of course, we do not have the history of development in India, the way we have talked about either in France, in England, in Germany, in Sweden and in the US, but of course, India has made certain progress in terms of developing these psychological tools. And as you can see on your screen now, you have the compilation of the psychological measures that are developed in India, the first handbook of psychological and social instruments. This is the title by Uday Parik and Venkateshwar Rao and then the second and the third handbooks by D. M. Pustanji. And here you find a large number of psychological tools that are being talked about and of course, you will have to look at each of them with certain pinch of salt because you would be looking at the standardization process, you would be looking at the norms, you would be looking at their reliability and validity scores, whether it is reported, whether it is not reported, how easily it is available and issues like that still remains. Then of course, if you read the five surveys of research in psychology that has come forward, there you have the important research contribution since the beginning of the last century. So, how research in psychology has progressed right from the beginning till now, you will find in these five surveys of research in psychology. And as I was telling you right in the beginning that although it was dull and dry in the beginning, 20 years back that I experienced, I really you know found it extremely fascinating and I found it very, very relevant and I thought you know I will put them together in a very brief period of time making a journey of 100 years of emerging of a particular discipline is extremely difficult, but I have tried in a small way, just to in a very, very compressed way, just to talk to you how you can look at the rigor, the process, certain jerks, acceptance, rejection that psychology has gone through. But once again remember that it is the practical need of the society either demanded by the society or stated through the government, which has you know asked, which has demanded, which has made the psychologist you know develop techniques, tools improvised on their techniques. And unless and until you know we look at the historical context, it is very difficult to understand, how strong the concept was, how you know sound a small experiment was, how robust development of a very, very small instrument was and what were the limitations. So, it is very important to look at these things in the historical context. In the following lectures by Professor Ajith Lal, by Professor Grishwar Mishra and by Professor G. V. P. Sinha, we would be further you know looking at historical development at the Indian front.


nd math curriculum frameworks and identify any modifications or additions to ensure the common standards blah blah blah blah blah and I am just like really we just moved to common core. We are going to look at our curriculum again. I don't believe well it's just my opinion but I don't believe that there would be very many changes because we are already well aligned unlike some other states but I am sure that they are just taking it very well. There is a political component to that in that there are folks who think that the common core is not as good as Massachusetts so you are going to make that statement where they are pretty equivalent. I mean there is some higher end stuff in the common core but you are not losing anything by going to common core. I like the common core. I am fine. I bought into it. I am just really tired. I feel like every two years we have a new curriculum and I feel like that is one of the things that they really don't see it costs us money every time they change the curriculum. I just want to make sure I mean I don't know who we get to give feedback on this wonderful 18 page document but I really I was like there is a public farm right? Yeah there is a public farm. We are in the western part of the state. Pitsfield. Pitsfield. We can't get there. Take a bus. It could be worse if it be North Adams. How much worse is that? No, let's see. There is one next on the 16th from 4 to 7 p.m. at Malden High School. And that will be at 6 in final public comment session on the Massachusetts next statewide assessment system. We have a community relations meeting. Okay. Anything else under superintendent's report? Yes. I'm actually really pleased to announce three different awards for our athletes and our AD. Let me well just very recently in the pictures and will be in the newsletter which by the way is going to come out any day now the MIAA educational athletics award in leadership was presented by the MIAA to our captain's council work in leadership. The MIAA grants these as they see fit to teams or individuals who demonstrate excellence in an area of one of their five pillars of educational athletics. While there isn't a limit or timeline specific to these awards, the recipients have to meet the standards of excellence. They said we are unique in that we're the only captain's council to receive this award. As much credit goes to our athletic director Melissa Duglecki for initiating this. So I was there when they actually presented the award. Similarly, there's a special award that is given at the district level and it's similar to the sportsmanship award which I will talk about in a second. There is one recipient for this award in each district each year. The criteria is exactly as stated that this award is presented annually to an athletic administrator with three to five years experience who has exemplified the highest standards of the profession and has made significant contributions to their school, league, district and state. The reward is prevented at the annual conference in March and there are eight recipients and our athletic director is one of those eight. There are eight regions in Massachusetts and there's one from each region. So it's quite an honor and I want to congratulate Mr. Duglecki for this honor. And lastly it's the district B that the district we belong to. It's the sportsmanship award. We as a member of the middle sex league district B in our district there are around 42 schools in it. Of all the schools in our district Arlington high school was chosen for the district B sportsmanship award. There are eight of these total given to eight high schools every year and again this is an award given to it will be given at the sportsmanship summit at Gillette stadium on November 20th. So congratulations to our athletes. And I have to say they demonstrate that in many ways. We unfortunately we had three teams go to the playoffs this year and a very disappointing end to the boys and the girls soccer. They played marvelously. They went into two over times ten minutes each and then in the shootout both teams lost three but they were gracious and it's no wonder they received this award. So congratulations to all our athletes. It's a joint effort that's got them there. This is a little plug for the Arlington center for the arts. They are having an event on Sunday the 15th which is this Sunday from one to four. Arlington is breaking new grounds using the arts. It's a true story theater has been awarded a grant for the National Endowment for Arts to support this effort. So a benefit performance of this and Silent Auction will introduce this project and it's this Sunday from one to four at the Arlington center for the arts. Let me make sure I have something else. I wanted to mention that the flag of the high school is up and one of our foreign parents Mrs. Preston has actually donated a new flag for the poll and I want to thank her publicly for that. And lastly but very important nonetheless I'm sorry it's last is that Tuesday night I went before the park and recreation board to have their formal approval for the Stratton being able to use the field for the Stratton mobile configuration because it's not really quite clear where the line demarcation is but it's clear from the encroachment into the field part of it that we probably have across the line and they were very supportive of this. The one thing they ask is that the field be returned to the state that it was after the construction which is something that they're trying to do anyway. One of the things I did learn which I didn't know until this week is that we do have an irrigation system up there in the Stratton field and so this can be some thought on their part as to it's zoned as to whether some zones will remain active another zone may not but that's something that they're working on. We do want the field to remain in good shape during the year and watering will be an important part for their support and we are moving forward with the plans. I think we're probably about six weeks out from actually issuing RFPs for the modular and we've been working there are parent groups, a parent teacher group and they've been wonderful in terms of giving suggestions to me and I actually have been meeting with a teacher and one of the parents from that group and they have become part of another group that is meeting with the DRA on a regular basis to we get actually put these RFPs out in terms of troubleshooting a lot of the details that need to be thought through before we actually go out because you don't want to surprise you know, well you have to make sure you've covered all the details and some things such as simple as where are the partitions going to be in the modulars where we're going to have OT and learning center and all that the other thing is we're going to be doing a remake of the cafeteria so that we can multiple uses there one probably would be that the stage will become a teacher, work room teacher center because when we have specials be now being conducted in classrooms to the extent that they might have to be teachers need a place to go and work we're also figuring out how to create the library how we might be able to have our classes in the cafeteria so that room is going to become multi-purposed and it needs considerable planning so a myriad of details along this line that we're trying to work out right now before we go out to bid Mr. Heiner how do you play ground? Can I defer this to Ms. Johnson? The contracts went out on October 16th I've spoken to the contractor the parts were ordered on October 5th and it's a 8 to 12 week turnaround once they have the parts in hand then about a week hopefully we're trying to set up a meeting when Mark Miano gets back next week from his vacation to get a pre-construction meeting but we don't really want to get that going until we're a couple of weeks away from construction so they don't have the parts yet and once they get the parts then we'll get the work done they think they can get the job done very quickly once the parts are in hand why was there a excuse me why was there a three-week delay between award and getting it signed I think she said the award was on the 15th of September then at the end of August and we were doing our due diligence and then there was getting the contracts out the door I don't normally do contracts like this normally it's handled by the town because the school department is paying for this I had to handle it and it did take a little longer to get them out so the contract was awarded in the middle of September right? No the formal contracts went out we picked a winner but we wanted to do some diligence around that they were qualified but it took a couple of weeks to get the contracts out the door I'm sorry I thought you said the contract was awarded in the middle of September we designated a low bidder but still had to do some further research to make sure there wasn't a reason to bar the low bidder so it wasn't finalized until October 6th they got the final contracts on October 16th but based on based on our communication with them they ordered the parts on October 5th so they actually with good faith ordered the parts ahead of actually having the contract in hand Thank you Anyone else? Okay now we come to the beloved consent agenda All items listed with a master's are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the committee so requests in which event the item will be considered in its normal sequence Approval of warrant number 16059 dated October 22nd 2015 total amount $856,137 in 35 cents Approval of warrant number 16066 dated 11-5-2015 total warrant amount $403,841 in 61 cents and approval of draft minutes for regular meeting 10-22-15 Moved by Mr. Heiner by Mr. Thielman All in favor? Opposed? The consent agenda is adopted policies and procedures We'll be meeting next week Budget We have a couple weeks ago and we have the second read of the draft budget calendar available for you I forgot to update it with which principles are going to show up when but I'll do that before I give it to Ms. Gerald Can I get a motion to approve? Okay and sorry Has changed by the chair The upcoming changes Okay Dr. Foti, we're flipping principles Yes December 8th Thursday night 10th I think they'll respectfully decline but they have conferences that night We set the conferences before we sort of set the one they were going to be coming So what we're going to do this year is have the secondary principles and we could even have special education if that could work out and have the elementary principles come on the following Thursday Okay Moved by Moved by Thielman Seconded by Seuss to adopt the calendar in favor It's adopted Anything else under budget? We'll be meeting again next week to discuss the Pierce field fees at greater length Okay Facilities Ms. Starks Nothing to report I'm optimistic that this group is going to get together and I'm going to get a doodle and I'm going to go to a meeting from that From that District accountability, curriculum, instruction and assessment Mr. Thielman Now we've completed the whole evaluation so we'll get a meeting together and start evaluating the evaluation process Community relations Dr. Seuss We met a couple weeks ago We discussed the website, the dashboards We discussed a survey at the survey this coming Monday We discussed how to do outreach to the community on our enrollment challenges and one tentative proposal is to have another large community forum in the very first week of January and we should know what's going on at the high school and meeting with some community members who have some ideas on what that forum should look like and we'll be discussing that Monday We're going to have a good dashboard We're trying to do that in Lowell as well That's one of the superintendent's goals and I've been looking around for districts who have done it well in Massachusetts and have more or less struck out I saw some I have a list of stuff that I thought were better I'm thinking about the back engine, the technical stuff behind it but Providence, Rhode Island is one that we should be thinking about so I will check that out because I need to professionally and if I find something that is appropriate for us to play with how to send the works One of the things that we found is that when you look to see whether it's going to be a content management we're finding there's a lot of limitations in terms of what we can do on a server what I'm really interested in is also what topics to do in the dashboard if anybody wants to add into this would be great but we did find that a lot of the ones that were very attractive or perhaps interactive all were content managed I don't know whether you're going to go into the general but that would be the dashboard too whether you want to but we could do a page long dashboard that you can scroll down and see all this data or we could do hire someone to digest the dashboard because it will be cheaper than the whole web page Lowell is looking to go to Tableau is a possibility it seems to be a good option for disseminating district data within a couple of grade levels using Tableau and we're further exploring that and Providence is using Tableau and it's relatively inexpensive compared to what we have to do elsewhere Tableau I'll get in touch with you and the committee is to where Lowell is going with us because I think we're finally in a promising direction anything else for community relations no we just have a meeting on Monday okay I won't say anything about the executive session I need the board to help me with this I don't want to beat it I'd like to suggest a recommendation for what has been done to send it out to legal and get their impression it's difficult and I appreciate it it's easier for me I have the time and I was able to do it but this is something that's just going to continually pile up on us it's tough when you're working full time I agree and Mr. Pierce has had trouble too so I mean through the chair to the board is there any problem sending it the questionable pieces to council produce a document for you all to see that you can look at but there's the the ones that are obvious they have to be released because the time has gone by and it has no impact there are the ones that absolutely cannot be released because they're covered under the law for over a thousand other things and then there's the questionable ones and those are the ones I think what KSC and I did the last time was we sent the two we sent the whole thing to council but the real ones they looked at just to get this out of the way because we've already had I think four or five executive sessions since then they've added more to it I would have no objection I have no objection hearing no objection Dr. Allison Ampe this would be town council you'd be sending it to town council yes absolutely that's who we used the last time as well thank you a warrant committee everybody get paid school enrollment task force hasn't met yet well I understand you're waiting for your happy meeting yes announcement I just want to mention that I did attend the MASC conference and the Delegate Assembly and I want to report back that the teaching pertaining to the mandate of teaching strategies gold was approved and very well received by the entire Delegate Assembly so that is now an official resolution of MASC and I want to thank the AEA for bringing it forward and bringing it to us and we've just added to the message announcements Mr. Hayner Mr. Hayner Mr. Hayner I heard a rumor that you're going to be going swimming on January 23rd I would like to thank all the people especially the young parents who brought their children out it meant a lot to all the vets that were there they had the ceremony inside the new fire station and then went out afterwards I would also like to announce that the Thompson annual town meeting all the third graders will be held in the town hall tomorrow morning January 23rd there will be another polar plunge I'm doing it again this year they've extended it to virtual plungers oh no no no no no no no I've already got your money I don't have to worry about but no no I am committed in more ways than one to go into the water but Adam Chapelein is the current president and he shivers every time I mentioned the polar plunge so I hit him yesterday with he can be a virtual plunger if he wanted and they've even put a snow day in this year which is a week later now Mr. Hayner if somebody is watching this on TV or if the advocate might want to pick this up how would somebody explain to me where the funds are going for your swimming thing and how they would donate to you thank you they're not donating to me I never see any of the money Rotary has a very strong program to eradicate polio throughout the world and they've put millions and millions of dollars last year we were matched 2-1 by the Bill and Melinda Gates fund I got through donations from the wonderful people here in town $1,500 so that resulted in the $4,500 donation right now currently there are only two countries left that as far as we know are with polio and that's Afghanistan and Pakistan and we're close what I will do is connect with the advocate and I will brief article on that and there'll be a web page that you can go to or if you don't like me use the internet to send money you can send it to the Allington Rotary Club and just on the memo just put for polio or polar plunge thank you very much I appreciate it any other announcements from the committee Mr. Spiegel do we need an executive session tonight the amendment to the yeah okay so no other business before us we'll go to executive session we're going to come out for a vote do we need to come out? we're just discussing that do we need to vote this I think we do yeah so we will come back very briefly at the end of the conclusion of executive session this will not be a long one I don't think so our motion is to which is to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiation with union or non-union personnel in an opening meeting maybe detrimental or to conduct strategy with respective collective bargaining which held in an open meeting may have a detrimental effect collective bargaining may also be conducted moved by Dr. Allison Ampe second by Mr. Thielman roll call Dr. Allison Ampe Mr. Thielman Dr. Seuss chair votes aye we are on executive session we are back Mr. Hayner moved to authorize the chair to sign the agreement between the school committee and the AEA second by Ms. Starks all in favor aye opposed unanimous vote thank you very much motion to adjourn by Ms. Hayner second by Ms. Starks all in favor aye we are adjourned


Welcome back. Now it is time for us to do some basic exercises and basic derivations in property relations and we will always remember that by default unless otherwise said our system is a fluid system that is simple compressible system and it is at rest and that means there is only one two-way work mode expansion compression represented by PDV and all other components of energy do not change except the thermal energy. So we can replace DE by DU. We start with our basic energy relation which is TDS equals DU plus PDV. First we are going to give a proper treatment to the thermal energy differential and for that what we do is transpose DU to the left hand side and write DU equals TDS minus PDV. Now remember here the left hand side being the differential of a property is an exact differential and hence the right hand side must also be an exact differential. On the right hand side we notice that we have differentials of S and differentials of V specific entropy and specific volume respectively and hence looking at our exact differential formula that if Z is a function of X and Y then DZ is something into DX plus something into DY and here that something are DS and DV. So let us consider U to be a function of S and V. Expanding DU in terms of DS and DV we will get DU equal to partial of U with respect to S at constant V into DS plus partial of U with respect to V at constant S into DV. Now compare these two relations. Left hand side is the same and hence comparing the coefficients of the differentials of the independent variables that is coefficients of DS which would be the same and coefficients of DV which would also be the same we get T equal to partial of U with respect to S at constant V and P equal to minus partial of U with respect to V at constant S. Let me complete the full derivation and then we will discuss something further about this. Now this is the first derivative relation. Now because the right hand side of this equation is an exact differential we must have the cross derivative relation also applicable and hence we get using the second derivative relation partial of T with respect to V at constant S is minus partial of P with respect to S at constant V. Let us call this relation which we will refer to again later as equation M1. Now before we proceed any further let us note the following. Notice that here we have considered U as a function of S and V and this triad of properties U, V, S is very important because we have noticed that any thermodynamic system should have a volume so V is a very natural variable. The first law provides a property E or U in this particular case and the second law provides a property S. So you can say that this triad of property is a basic thermodynamic property triad and then if you consider this to be the property triad then naturally you can consider U to be a function of S and V and in that case these two relations T equals partial of U with respect to S at constant V is the defining relation for temperature in this case in terms of U, S and V and the second relation P which is minus partial of U with respect to V at constant S now becomes the defining relationship for pressure. Let us generalize this a bit further. We considered U, V, S as the basic property set because we were looking at a simple compressible system at rest. If you consider a complex system in which case we cannot replace D E by D U straight away. You will have changes in thermal energy component plus changes in other components of energy. So let us remain with E. Basic property V will remain, second law will provide S but because apart from PDV work or expansion compression work we will have other modes of work and let they be of the type Y DX or Y1 DX1, Y2 DX2 whatever you have any number. Let me write just two of them here, some X1, X2 but you could write any number. Now in that case our definition of temperature would turn out to be T equal to, now here we will have to write partial of E with respect to S at constant V and also at constant X1, X2 and if you extend the list of dependent variables here, one pertaining to each two way work mode that list will also have to be extended here. And also the definition of pressure would be minus partial of E with respect to V not only with constant S but also at constant X1, X2 etc. Thank you.


Hi you guys! I am back for another riveting round of Instagram Made Me Buy It, where I see things in Instagram ads, buy them, and then try them out for the very first time with you guys. We have not had a very good track record with Instagram Made Me Buy It. I really only think there's been like one or two things that have really worked out. This product though, I really do feel like has a lot of potential, so I can't wait to try it out and share it with you guys. But before we get too far into it, be sure to like this video so that YouTube will show it to lots of other people. And then subscribe and click the bell if you want. If you're new here, I'm Lindsay. Welcome. I sew all my own clothes and come on the internet and talk to you guys about it. Introduce yourself in the comment section below so that I can get to know you a little bit better too. Alright, so this product is the needle sorting cushion from Madam Sew. And there's not much to it, right? It's this little itty bitty pillow. Okay, I mean it's probably what, three inches by three inches? And then they have printed on all your different types of sewing machine needles and then the various sizes. So my current system of sorting the needles that I have already used is just to stick them in the mat that my sewing machine is sitting on.  And then I'm like, well, I don't know if that was a stretch needle or not. So we're just going to go forward and see how it behaves. So I do think that this would be helpful for that. I have grabbed a couple of needles here. This is pretty straightforward. I mean, it's not really like a huge demo demonstration. But for example, I have this universal size 70 and you can just stick it in like so. I do wish the only thing I wish is that they had the color codes for the types of needles and then the color codes for the sizes so that I didn't have to look it up every time. But that could be something maybe I can add, like I can just go in with colored markers and just put those in. But this one is yellow on top and then blue. So I know blue is 70. I don't remember what yellow on top is. Let's pretend it's ballpoint. So we're going to put that in. And then this one is blue on top and then purple. Again, I have no idea what that is. I'd have to look it up. Oh, but it's very thick. So I'm going to say denim. I'm going to say denim size 90. Obviously, I'm going to double check all of these. So you just stab it in there. Another sort of downside to this is like, okay, this is great. It's very organized and tells me exactly what I've got easily looking at it. But where do I keep this? This is going to go flying off of my table in no time.  Biscuit literally ate half a tub of lotion today.  So I wish that it had like maybe Velcro.  That's a really good option. You could also like attach some elastic and maybe elastic it to like around your machine somehow. I don't know, but you do have to do a little bit of extra work in order to get this like stable somewhere. Maybe even like, well, I mean, this kind of acts as a hook. They're a little label. So you could put a little nail in the wall right above your machine and then you could just hang it on the nail. That's really easy. So that would work. So I don't know. This is really cool. I really like this. I mean, it's definitely not something remarkable in terms of engineering. You could probably make this on a Cricut if you wanted to. You know, it's just literally sewn around three sides, cut on the fold and sewn around three sides. And then one of them is top stitched.  So again, you know, there's a little bit of batting inside. Nothing super remarkable in terms of construction. So if you wanted to, you could make it, you could even just take some fabric and draw the lines on.  Grab it from Madam So. This is going to be really, really helpful. So what I will end up doing is taking it from the package, using it in my machine for a project or whatever. And then when I go to swap it out, I'll put it into here and I'll know that all the ones in here have been used at least once. And then once I'm done with that, then it'll go into the little jar I keep for all my used needles that need to be tossed. So super cute, right? I will have a link in the description box for where you can go check out the Madam So needle sorting pin cushion. And yeah, not so bad for Instagram, right? I'll be back next month with another product. What will it be? Who knows? But if you ever see anything on Instagram, TikTok, even into YouTube ads, where it's a sewing product and you want me to try it, be the giddy pig, send it to me, DM me, email me, whatever you need to do, send it to me and I will buy and try it because I'm just here to serve you. That's really what I'm here for. I have linked in the insulate here a the last Instagram made me do it video. If you want to go check that out. Otherwise, that is going to do it for me and I will see you all very soon. Bye.


Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Thanks. All right. It's 9 o'clock in the morning, and you are here to discuss cyber war, which suggests to me great intellectual curiosity, or perhaps you didn't get to sleep last night. It's quite possible that if this panel goes the way I think it will, you may have trouble sleeping tonight. Because we're going to talk about some issues that loom large, and have been in the headlines a lot in the past year, and that the only thing that we really know about this subject is that it will change extremely rapidly over every month and year ahead of us. We've got a great group of people here to talk about these issues, and I will introduce them as we go around and talk about this. There's some fancy WEF technology we've got here. You just need your phone to do this. They want to take a poll of all of you. Has the first cyber war already begun? What you do is you go up to the link that you see up there, www.wef.ch slash vote, and then you can answer yes or no. And then at the end, all of you who answered no will stand in that corner over there. Oh, man. Because you're not paying attention. Anyway, I chaired this panel last year, and we had a great discussion about cyber war. And almost none of what we discussed about cyber war is what dominated the cyber war headlines in 2016. And that tells you a lot about the nature of what we're talking about. Tom Donlon, you are not only one of America's best national security advisors, but you were kind of sort of the first national security advisor of the cyber war era. You accepted it. Prior to you, there was a long tradition among national security advisors of not using email. So we were making a big leap in the United States government there. But I'd like to talk a little bit about how the last year looks to you. And if you could start, I don't want to direct you, but if you could start, one of the things that's, I think, essential to this discussion is, what do we mean by cyber war? Because when we discussed it last year, we're talking about hacking, denial of services, these kind of things. And much of the cyber warfare of the past year, or what we focused on, were things like information warfare, using technological tools to influence social media and political discussions in a country. And the first question is, is that part of cyber war? And is this definition evolving? And how do you view 2016 in the evolution of that definition? Thanks, David. So I think what 2016 was was a preview of things to come. During the course of the year, and the things you talked about last year are also quite current and valid and will be in the future, cyber will be part of any war-making plans that a government has going forward. You have a whole range of attack vectors, ranging from nation-state activities from espionage all the way through the kinds of things, information warfare, which I'll talk about in just a second, criminality through insiders. And that all will be the playing field. What we saw the last year, though, of course, most notably has been the blurring, if you will, of the line between war and peace, or being at war formally and not being at war formally during the course of the last year. And the most visible of the most celebrated, I guess, example of this has been the Russian comprehensive effort to affect the US elections in the United States. And that, again, though, I think is an example of what we've seen in terms of doctrine moving forward here, which is to compete in these gray zones between war and not being at war. And what we saw in the United States was a comprehensive effort by the Russian government to try to affect the election. What, of course, is notable about a number of things, including the fact that it was a nation-state moving beyond espionage. I mean, we have nation-states will have and will continue to spy on each other and to steal secrets. What this was, though, was stealing the secret and then releasing it strategically to have a desired effect. And this, we saw previews of this, by the way. Over the last 10 years, we saw previews in the hybrid war operation in Crimea. We saw it in operations in eastern Ukraine. And we saw it really beginning in kind of in Estonia, in Georgia in 2007 and 2008. Again, part of a comprehensive effort to have a set of effects that are enabled by technology here. And there's a lot of different aspects to it, which allows you to get into this gray zone. It is covert. Attribution is hard. It's done without kind of physically crossing some border. But I think it's a preview of things to come, frankly, and kind of a blurring this line. And the Russian government denies it, by the way. Well, then it's probably not true. Well, of course, that's demonstrably not true, the Russian government has engaged in its activity. And I think it's the last thing I'll say about it. It's really is a, you know, it's one of the enabling techniques in information warfare. And we saw a comprehensive effort in the United States. And I think we'll see it going forward. And I will say this last point on this, is that Europe has a year of elections in 2017, a very significant year of elections. And this is, I think, a preview of the kind of threat that Europe needs to be very aware of going forward. And there's already signs that it's happening in some of the discussions in Germany and in elsewhere. By the way, as we were coming up here, Moises noted that we're all Americans here, to which my response was, as far as we know. You know, with the sophistication of Russian espionage, I'm not even sure where I'm from. But there's a reason we're all Americans here, I think. And that is that this has been an area where the US has led. And it's led, Tom, because of the private sector. This is an area, I mean, although the NSA is the leading organization of its kind in this, this is a form of warfare that has actually been cultivated as much outside of government as inside of government. That's something new, isn't it? Well, it really is. The engineering really came out of the private sector. And when you take a look at the way the taxonomy, Tom, put together of how the different ways you look at this, you have hackers or hacktivists, that's one category, and they use a certain number of techniques. You have plain, simple cyber espionage. We've known about that, and it's been working for a long time. There's a set of techniques there. The place where it's really accelerated with a lot of the techniques that were built to defend the private sector is when you get into hacking for money. And about, you say 15 to 20% of global GDP is being lost in this whole notion of hacking for money. And then there's the one that I think is the most dangerous, and Tom would be an expert. I don't wanna push you on this, but who is they, when you say they say 15% of global GDP is being lost? That came from a report that I read from Oppenheimer that just released a 36 page report on comprehensive view into how security is being done today and how it needs to be done in the future, and they use that as a stat to try to justify a different way of thinking about cyber warfare. And then the last is nation states. So the private sector has been defense, defense, defense, but using the same techniques that you do for defense to cause harm, it's a similar technology. So the more technology we build to defend, they take that technology, repurpose it to attack. And I think that the private sector and public sector coming together will have the best opportunity to make the threat vectors go away. So Shirley, one of the things that I hear in this is that among our biggest initial challenges are vocabulary challenges. How do we define this? I'm talking about hybrid war and gray areas. I think that's a really important point. If there's something you're gonna take away from this, that's one of the first ones to walk away with, is people are testing the limits of gray areas in cyber, in hybrid war, in international law generally. Frankly, one might argue in some domestic areas in the United States as well, they're trying to see where enforcement actually starts. The absence of new norms creates an opportunity, where the lack of international laws application creates opportunity, where the lack of doctrine on the part of countries in terms of enforcement response creates opportunities, and where the lack of political will creates opportunities. And we've seen this take some interesting forms. So for example, when the Sony hack occurred, President Obama sort of seemed to be struggling for the right words. And he referred to the hack as vandalism. And some people said, well, he's doing that because if he calls it a military attack, which he would if North Korean guys came in a little boat and blew up some computers in a building in Los Angeles, he would have had to respond that way. And by referring to it vandalism, it gave him more options. How do we, you've advised governments on this? How do we tackle that? Well, I think we're comfortable or more comfortable if an attack is a kinetic attack, if it causes some physical effect. And of course, if there's the additional quote unquote collateral damage of people physically being armed, then governments feel more comfortable in responding. So a big question becomes, what is disablement? Because that's what kinetic attacks do. And what does it do to the welfare of the population? And so I believe that actually there's going to be a need on a domestic front to think about how much translation there can be from what we use with respect to response to kinetic attacks to say, what is disablement? And then on an international basis, it took a long time to get the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, took three UN conferences. And finally in 82, the convention was, completed, but it didn't come into effect for another 12 years. But when you think about some of what it tried to do in terms of the use of the oceans for commerce, then I think as we look at cyber space, we're gonna have to think about some of those sorts of things. But let me make one last comment. The thing we haven't talked about, but I know it's something that Tom knows quite a bit about, and that is the whole question of networked infrastructure. Because you mentioned the Sony attack. And in fact, there was disablement of Sony's actual computer capability that came through the attack. There were actually machines that were destroyed. And so that's correct. And so you could argue that that crossed the line into its own kind of a kinetic attack. And so I'm not saying it's easy, but I think there are lessons that we can learn. And so much of our critical infrastructure in the cyberspace does rest in private hands. And so when you talk about hybrid war and gray zones, to me one of the greatest emergent gray zones is how shall governments respond when there are attacks on critical infrastructure that could really cause disablement. And with that disablement affect people when that infrastructure's in private hands. Okay, so one of the things that I'd like to do here is I'd like to have a discussion about the changing nature of threats. And then I'd like to follow up on your point and have a bit of a discussion about what is effective deterrence. Because absent deterrence, there's no sort of effective way of protecting people. But my sense is we look at- I'll add one concept to your list if we go forward up here, which is also resilience. Because these attacks are going to happen, right? And part of them, one of the most important aspects of deterrence will be resilience. Right, so okay, but I think that's an important point. We should come work that in. But my sense, one of the challenges we face is addressing these attacks, particularly in these gray areas, in the context of a liberal democracy. So how do we struggle with that? So on 9-11, an al-Qaeda taught us to talk about asymmetric war. WikiLeaks and the Kremlin have been teaching us about asymmetric cyber war. Al-Qaeda's attacks were, as you said, kinetic. They had physical consequences and damages. And cyber attacks of many kinds are having political consequences, for example. And if you take that perspective, an asymmetric war is war between belligerents that have very different capabilities or use very different strategies and where the traditional definitions of resources and power change. So we said here, and I agree, that the United States, that the one of the reason why the US is so represented in this session is because the United States has been leading thanks to the private sector and technology and all that. But it's clear that it's also lagging in terms of doctrine and strategy and foreign policy and other and defense policy on what to do with this. So it's leading technologically, but it's lagging in terms of policy responses. And that is not just the United States. I think that liberal democracies are at a disadvantage in cyber wars. I think autocracies and dictators have more capabilities, not technological, but institutional and political and the frameworks that they use. It is very interesting how, if you look at the list of the victims of cyber attacks that are political, they're mostly in liberal democracies. Wouldn't we have liked WikiLeaks to leak some of the emails that come out of the Kremlin? Wouldn't we have liked to know more about the cyber communications of the Chinese Communist Party or the Iranians? But note that all of what we have gotten is information about either political leaders or political organizations and governments that are liberal democracies. That is a challenge and I don't know that that challenge has a technological fix. I think it requires new thinking, as you say. We don't even have words to describe exactly what is going on or how to react. And as you say, Tom, we have this hybrid thing, which is both kinetic and traditional and new. And as you said, it changes every 15 minutes. The threats, the capabilities, the victims, the protagonists, the belligerents change. But the essence, what has not changed is the symmetry in which liberal democracies are at a disadvantage. I mean, that hasn't changed in many respects, although clearly WikiLeaks is working for somebody and it's no accident that WikiLeaks is not leaking on the people who pay their bills, right? But we also are seeing an evolution where countries like the United States are developing a massive capability in this regard. And where cyber warfare, the line between, we're talking here about the line between kinetic and cyber. But we're not talking about what I think may be an equally important line, which is the line between cyber and automated warfare. Because we're moving forward towards a period in which robot armies and drone swarms and other technologies that are animated by artificial intelligence or smart systems are fighting wars on the part of the very big nations, often against smaller nations and smaller adversaries. And so even what Roy says is true up until this point, but that's evolving. Now you are a national security advisor. We have a new national security advisor coming in who you know very well. If you would like to characterize him, we would all be welcome. You don't welcome your characterization. But you know this guy very well and he knows this stuff pretty well. If you were talking, have you talked to him? We briefed the staff on it. We did a report for President Obama, which is essentially a transition report for the last eight months on cyber security. Okay, so if you're enumerating, what you see as the top threats, what would you tell him? Okay, well a couple of things. One, you talked about the line between cyber and kinetic. I don't like the direction that this is going in though, because we're moving towards cyber being a kinetic effect as well. You go from spying to cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, which is a huge problem of time that we've been addressing, to disruption, to information warfare, to destruction. Because you're right, the Sony attack was a disrupt. Well so was the Stuxnet attack and so was the Siemens attack. So I don't know if that line is not, I don't think that line, that line has been blurred, I think, and we're moving, I don't like the direction, frankly, that that's moving in. On the advice side, we have some doctrinal deficits that Moises points out. The DNI, Jim Clapper, who's been the director of national intelligence in the United States for a number of years now, for the last three or four years, when he goes up to the hill, David, as you know, he gives a global threat report every winter. And he, for the last three or four years, has put cyber security as the number one threat to the United States. And that may surprise people, given we have a lot of threats and we have a lot of challenges in the world. But the first point I would make is that the resources and mind share and attention, although it's increased pretty dramatically over the last decade, is not anywhere near that we put into counter-terrorism, homeland security and things like that. We're really uneven. And of course this has been made very clear in some of the attacks, right, successful attacks on United States government information, right? And most, you know, a good example of that is the Office of Personnel Management with 20-something million files were stolen. And so the next point would be that we need to do a lot more to harden our defenses and we can do a lot more to do this. It really is, it really is. You know, there are a number of things that can be done which can have a lot of positive effects, both in the technological side and in the management side, including doing a better job on authentication identity management. We have a much better job on conduct, right, by individuals and organizations. There's a number of things to be done that are... But we're skipping ahead here a bit and I know you want to respond in this regard, but I'd like to just give everybody a clearer sense of the threats that they need to deal with and whether it's, you know, hacking, asymmetric hacking. I mean, I know when you went out and talked to the Chinese and you said, let's work on this issue. You zeroed in on government attacks against private sector as an area, but there were four, right, but there were four sort of major areas that you were talking about. And I just, I think it'll be helpful for everybody here to understand that taxonomy. Yeah, I think, well, I'll just do it very quickly. One, obviously we have increased nation state threats along a whole range of dimensions that we've talked about here. And we've seen, and I think we're gonna see going forward here, cyber's part of this kind of overall information warfare, hybrid warfare thing. And so that's, you know, the National Security Advisor, you are thinking very hard about nation state threats. We continue to have threats through, and there are some groups that are mixes of kind of supported by government, but if a gang, if you will, kind of cyber gang operations, you know, the Russian, in Russia, for example, some of the private sector, if you will, a hacktivist, have capabilities as good as most nation states, right? And that, I think, isn't a growing threat. And third would be our critical infrastructure and threats both from nation states, but also from people who want to disrupt things. And you have that economic threat from criminals and others who disrupt for profit. So just, this is our threat round here. So I just wanna go around and talk a little bit about what you see as perceived threats. Are there areas that Tom has not enumerated that you see as being of concern? To be provocative, I would throw the notion of what would happen from a threat perspective. If you take a look at the capability of a lot of private sectors, they understand cybersecurity as well as many nation states. What would happen if you had an employee that detected a hack, understood the nation state that did it, and on their own accord, attacked back? That's unprecedented. But it's not a zero probability that could happen.  It'd be highly ill-advised. But it's not, it's not. You don't know who's on the other end of the attack. All right, and you may get yourself in a very difficult position. But it's not a zero probability that could happen. And I think this gets into one of the problems of cyber, which is threats come from the private sector and they come from the public sector. They come, therefore, from literally thousands and thousands or millions of potential sources against thousands and thousands of millions of potential sources, I mean targets. And each of those targets has the potential to react in a different way, in accordance or not in accordance with the law, in accordance or not in accordance with public policy, but with potential consequences for the country of law. So I think we're trying to separate things that are not so easily separable. Now I'm gonna come at it a little bit more from the technological side. You know, we talk about cyber and then we sort of talk about the internet of things and then we kind of talk about autonomous entities as if these fall into three separable buckets. And in the end, if you're really talking cyber, you're really saying there are three sorts of things that play off of each other. And they actually are represented by the fourth industrial revolution that we've been talking about here. And they are these. What is, from my perspective, cyber, it means you have something that is algorithmically driven. Somebody's written some software and it can cause certain things to happen. You also have connectivity. So that connectivity allows hacking. That connectivity allows the invasion of, the use of, the destruction of connected things. And then you have a kind of intelligence that can be embedded into networks and into things. And, but again, even that intelligence is algorithmically driven. And so we shouldn't think that these things are so easily separable because those tell you the avenues of threat. And so then the question is, who are the threat initiators? But they tell you the avenues of threat. And so when you wanna think about where the threats are, you better think about the architecture of how we live. Because if we don't, then there are no effective responses. I think this is a vitally important point. And it gets us into an area that you don't normally get into in a conversation like this.  The tipping point in the history of the planet when for the first time in the history of humanity, every human being will be connected in a man-made system for the first time. Because everybody effectively will have access to a smartphone. And that has massive benefits. It also means everybody is vulnerable to everybody else in some material ways. We also have as a result of that some changes that you've indicated and the internet of things raises this too. Because not only is the internet of things contained smart, but it's producing data all the time. And we are moving to a database economy where the fundamental units of economic value are bits and bytes that are moving around in this system. And we don't even have a philosophical framework with which to deal with that. And if you combine the lack of a philosophical framework with the lack of a taxonomy, with the lack of a generation of leaders who understand this, we've got a problem, right? So think about this question. What are the most disruptive and transformational weapons of the 21st century so far? What are the new weapons that have transformed war and warfare in this century? First is improvised explosive devices. They were a major factor in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? Second is drones, but they glorified landmines. Glorified landmines, but surely, they're all technologies, but surely were the most important transformational. The most deadly. And more deadly, the most casualties. There's no doubt that improvised explosive devices were important. And the barrier to entry to build one is negligible. And that's where I'm going. The second one is drones, right? 21st century is drones, IEDs are drones. And the third is cyber. What do they have in common, these three? That for the first in history, the big transformational weapons systems were always under the control of the state. The military controlled the most important weapons of the time. Now they are under the state, but anyone here, any of us here or in the world can build a drone, build an IED, combine a drone with an IED and do some cyber. And as you said, and as the director of national intelligence has confirmed, there are individuals and actors that have more potent capabilities in cyber than nation states. If you put all this together with what you just said about the internet of things and about the number of gadgets and systems and individuals that are going to be connected, what you have is a story where nation states are just trying to find doctrines, reactions and ideas, but are very, very impaired in catching up with the velocity, the complexity and the novelty of all these things. And if you then add Leon Panetta, and you know he was Secretary of Defense, he worked at the White House, I think, with you, he famously said that we, at some point, the United States was going to have a cyber, a cybernetic, a cyber per harbor or something like that. A cyber. A cyber per harbor. A cyber per harbor. Well, the United States just had a politically cyber per harbor, right? And then it is possible that when the Japanese attacked per harbor, there was immediate retaliation and there were immediate costs and there were immediate consequences. Maybe we're watching a situation here in which the United States is attacked successfully by arrival and there are no retaliation. There are no consequences, even though the President Obama and others have said that there are some overtly and covertly, overt and covert reactions to what the Kremlin has done, we may be seeing a political cyber per harbor that does not create the kind of retaliation that the other one. Look, this is a vitally important point and it's a hard one to get into at nine o'clock in the morning. But it's a harder one to get into at nine o'clock this morning and I'm gonna say something and it's not political. I'm gonna make a bunch of factual statements here. The man who today will be sworn in as President of the United States won the election by a very, very narrow margin in three states totaling less than 100,000 votes. There were a number of issues that swung the election but among those issues were debate about the security of Hillary Clinton's emails, the consequences of Russian hacks into the behavior of her and the Democratic National Committee and the debate surrounding the legal action stricken by this and so on. In other words, this election was the first in American history that turned in material degree on cyber related issues and given the narrowness of the election, it's impossible to discount the possibility that those things changed the outcome of the election. And you can come at this from any political point of view. What you can't do is say that there is a zero possibility that this cyber stuff tipped the balance and what you have to do is say there's actually quite a high possibility that they did tip the balance and that the man who will be sworn in as President of the richest, most powerful country in the world will be sworn in in part because of cyber actions against the United States and cyber related issues. That's a watershed in history. That is a cyber pearl harbor to some degree. Is it not, Tom? Well, again, it's not possible to know exactly all the factors that led to an election outcome. That's not really a problem. It's not possible to know, but it's possible to know that they played a role and that they were material. Yeah, well, we don't know the latter, you just don't know, but the intelligence committee has said that in fact they, and they put out a public report indicating that the Russians in a comprehensive way tried to interfere with the election, but they have not done any analysis on the effect on the outcome. Somebody has to do that. Everybody's afraid of that analysis, but I would just argue each of you has to do some analysis and ask yourself what was the potential consequence of this? Could it have swung 100,000 votes? Do you think it may have, et cetera? Yeah, but what is clear is that it was an effort by a nation state to effect an election, and that requires thinking very hard about the response, and it requires a very hard thing, as I said earlier today, particularly in Europe, because those are the kind of, the election's kind of closest to us. Really thinking about how to deal with that in the whole electoral political context going forward. I want to just add on one thing that Shirley said though on the, and something you followed up on. You indicated we could be thinking about 10 years from now, right, to have this kind of massively interconnected world, interconnected individuals and institutions, right? The massive interconnection, Dave, is a lot closer, because the internet of things dynamic that Shirley referenced is moving at a really fast speed. Absolutely, and we could be going to billions of connected devices in a very short period of time. We are not ready for a security perspective for this, because the mandate, and this is your world, Mike, the mandate and the incentive in that world right now is get to market quickest, right? And with the least expense, right? It's classic kind of capitalist driven motivations, right? And security is not being designed at the front end, and this is a really big challenge. We saw it just recently, we saw this attack, and it can be weaponized, Dave. Well, right, and when you said we saw that. Hundreds of thousands of these devices, right, can be taken over and pointed to its targets. Is that a fair, well, it's a completely fair, a couple of that, culturally, as a programmer, we haven't taught ourselves to build security into the original design. We always build the functionality because it's cool and it's interesting and it's fun, and then we say, oh, we better protect this. We have to change the way we develop software where we build security right up front in the software at the beginning, and also marry that into a more hardened hardware and network infrastructure, and those are very, very difficult things to do because it's cultural. And by the way, I think you even understated because there's well over 20 billion devices on the internet right now, and the one estimate has by 2020, 50 billion devices. Each one of, some of which are embedded in critical infrastructure, some of which are embedded in your home, some of which you carry around every day. There's a lot of potential targets there. I want to go to you with one question and then I want to follow it up with you. One of the problems that I see is related to how the public sector picks up the baton that Moises is referring to here and responds to it. If you wanted to have a job like the job you had in the 60s or 70s in the United States, you had to speak nuclear. You had to understand what was going on.  You had to understand the vulnerabilities of mobile systems versus submarine systems versus airborne systems, et cetera.  I spoke to Mike Hayden, another senior former intelligence official, and he said he used to go into the White House and brief people on this. And they would look at him like he was in the movie Rain Man. No one understood what he was saying. And I've talked to people at very, very senior levels in the United States government. And I say, how many people really get it who are at the policy level? Not in the bowels of the NSA, but at the policy level. And they'll say, a handful. Do we have a problem that the people who are in charge of security at national levels are not just constrained, as Moises said, philosophically, by liberal democracy. They just don't get it. I have a huge problem. We had a problem in the private sector as well. This was regarded as the IT person who was gonna handle that, right? And in fact, now we've made a lot of progress in the United States because it's now the responsibility, very clearly, of the CEO and the board and the same leadership. And the government, this is a huge problem. And it's not, our senior policy makers at this point have not gotten to the point where they are really technologically in cyber and literate in any depth at this point. One of the recommendations we made in our report, David, was long these lines was to have an assistant to the president for cybersecurity. Did you have in mind the mayor of New York who'd never done anything in cyber? Well, it was just a prank. And I actually, I would, all right, I'm gonna keep on pushing past, but the, trying not to take the bait, but that won't stop, they're gonna keep on trying. I'm gonna keep on. But I think I would go beyond that. If I were making a recommendation today to General Flynn, to have an assistant to the president for cybersecurity and technology policy, because it's broader than that. You know, Moises went through the technological things that are coming at us right now that affect national security. And a lot of this is also about having people who are expert in these areas and who can work with the private sector, right? So we have all manner of security issues that involve technology. But I think it involves full-time people devoted to justice with bandwidth and with expertise. And today that's rested with the senior director of the National Security Council and with the assistant to the president for Homeland Security. Now if you're the assistant for the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, you are a busy person in the United States, right? And you are focused on protecting the country every single day from counterterrorism. And it's not physically possible, I don't think, to get that same person to be technically deep and have the bandwidth to handle the issues. So I agree with you. The last thing I'll say about this is accountability. So in the private sector, I think we've made progress because we've now made boards and CEOs accountable. And again, if I had the first cabinet meeting and we're staffing the president next week, one of the key things would be this. Mike, you're the secretary of actually, the secretary of state, right? You've got a lot of responsibilities, but you are responsible for cybersecurity and you're ready to say I'm gonna hold you responsible. It's not somewhere down in the bowels, right? The only way we'll make progress on this is to have a culture of accountability and focus at the top.  Just very briefly, I just want to bring the multilateral dimension. None of this can be done alone. No country can tackle this effectively alone. And this conversation has had two biases. It is US-centric and it's state-centric. And this has to be more than one country. And I already, and I think we all agreed that the arena here is not the public sector. The arena has already quickly shifted to individuals and to society. One, second, there is a dimension that is centered, has to be centered in nation states and governments, but be careful because they cannot do it alone. That person that you are appointing will immediately have to work with other countries, which adds another layer of complexity because there's nothing more ineffective, boring, slow-moving bureaucratic than multilateral action. Okay, so this is exactly where I was gonna go with this. And I want to turn to you and I will turn to you. But this creates a need for public, private and nation-state to multilateral collaboration in a way that no other previous threat has required. Most of the targets are private sector. Most of the expertise is in the private sector. Most of the security and defense is gonna have to be conducted by the private sector. Many of the attacks that take place because they're against the private sector are unknown to the governments and the governments can't respond to them. So do you think the private sector is rising to this challenge right now? We have to, part of it is what Tom said. Well, that's not what I asked. I think that there's clear room for improvement. I do believe that the private sector is much more aware of the impact that a cyber attack can happen on their infrastructure and we're very defensive. Not that we're protected, we are defensive. And there's no board of directors that is slowing down spending and on cyber defense techniques. The problem that we have is that it changes so quickly and all you need is that one identity that gets compromised. If you take a look at almost all of the hacks that we've seen in the private sector, it hasn't been a super sophisticated attack. It's been a attack where they find an individual who has root password and once you compromise that one machine, you infiltrate all of the others. There's things we can do to lessen the attack of that, but you cannot make it go away completely. But here's the problem. So I would answer your question this way. I think there's variability in the private sector depending upon where. I think the financial services industry is probably further progressed. I think when you... Well, let me challenge that. You can challenge it. I didn't say it was perfect. No, no. But I want to challenge it on a critical area that I was gonna follow up here. And that is part of it is coming up with a defense. Part of it is being willing to talk about it and to communicate with the government. And the financial sector is attacked all the time, is losing billions of dollars, and they don't want to talk about it. That's very true. We can't talk about it because we have shareholders and if we were to show that we've been compromised and there was a shareholder lawsuit against the board of directors or a management team that they did not take the appropriate duty of care in the United States, even if you did that, you're still going to get sued. We don't have a true safe harbor where we can share. And if we were able to do that, and to your point, if we just did that in the United States, it wouldn't matter. We have to do it unilaterally. So if we had this multilaterally, if we had this concept of a safe harbor, and even if it was anonymous, I got hacked, I'm gonna tell you exactly how it got hacked, but I'm not gonna tell you who I am, and gave it to a trusted third party, and so that everybody that belonged to it could go see how that happened, and you could go defend yourself immediately. And this gets into what you brought up as the concept of machine learning. Whoever has the most amount of data is going to win, and to the extent that you can make it harder that the novel technique that you use to go hack one company has become irrelevant 24 hours after it was found, that's very, very powerful. I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, it's okay, because I actually think that I'd like to see the whole conversation shift, because everything is about a moot kind of approach. Let's keep the bad guys out. Let's keep the malware out.  Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All of us have our own little microbiomes. Well, what keeps us from getting sick? What keeps us from getting sick is that we have an immunity that builds up because of exposure. And so I think the whole way defenses are organized, and we need to think about this, has to do with response, almost like an immune response. I think it's very data dependent. But I also think it rests at a deeper level with how systems are developed, connected, and how data is architected to start with. Now this is to, like you said, everybody's eyes glaze over every time you start to talk about something that sounds technological. But the big message is, stop trying to think that the moot is gonna help you in cyberspace. It's a really important insight, and a really important way of looking at it. But you know, we break it down, and there's a technological component to what you're saying. Correct. There's also a legal component to what you're saying, because you know, when your body responds to an attack, there's communication among the parts of your body. Correct. Right, and so if you can't communicate up the chain, if you can't share the knowledge, if you can't build a collective immunity to somebody you can do it, and then there's philosophical and legal issues that are associated with this, and that's what makes it so complicated. But take it back to your point. Take it to the multilateral stage. What do you see as the challenges in getting there? Because it's really an area where everybody says, this is a big problem, and we haven't made much progress multilaterally. We need a coalition of democracies that can work together. It's very, very clear that we are going to see a clash between cyber spaces now fully weaponized. It's full of instruments that can do a lot of damage to individual organizations and systems. So, and it's very clear that dictators will have much more options and possibilities than democracy. So, it's very important to create a club of democracies that is more able to create the sort of antibodies, the sort of resilience, the sort of doctrines and technologies that allow them to do this. And you need to have conventions that people can operate on, right? And it's hard to do in cyberspace, but it must be done. But you can't go there. The most important point, you're not going to get everybody because there are really strong differences, right? With respect to between the democracies, frankly, in the world and other major players in the world. I said I'd say three things. Number one, information sharing, we can do a much better job in this in real time. The goal should be that the same attack doesn't get to take place twice, right? And I think we can make a lot of progress. And indeed, you referenced the group that the president elect, soon to be the president put together under Mayor Giuliani. That's an important, potentially an important thing. We recommend it to have an equivalent to the Intelligence Advisory Board, to have a Cyber Advisory Board, where you have a kind of a constant communication about these kinds of issues, so Mike's raising. But how do we do better? On the international side. We can separate. Right, yeah, let's fair. Well, okay, let me talk about that. But on the international side, norm setting is a really powerful thing, right? And we learned that through our experience in the non-proliferation area, I think they would do a referencing earlier. It is a really powerful thing, and it shouldn't be dismissed, but we're gonna have to do it with like-minded nations because there are nations out there who act in the cyberspace, but we're not like-minded, right? And we started an example of that with the Russians during the campaign. And to add up another layer of complexity is what you said at the beginning. We don't know who we are anymore. You don't know if you're a Russian agent. Exactly. I can get back to you on that. When... I don't know, but Tom does. He knows.  Well, we may enter an era in which it's very hard to recognize a democracy because there may be a lot of democracies or a lot of autocracies masquerading as democracies. Well, it's also, it's not a foregone conclusion. I think there was a view in the United States, I think there still is a view in the United States, that we invented the internet, Al Gore did it personally, but we invented the internet and we have more internet companies, we have more capacity, and therefore we're gonna set the rules for the internet. And the reality is we may not set the rules for the internet. And you know, the great firewall of China may seem like a odious and disconnected idea from our values, but it's not that the idea that a nation state controls the internet domain within its borders, however it may define that, while not the US idea really is catching on. It's not just China or Russia or Iran that believes this. Countries like India and Saudi Arabia and Brazil have all taken actions at one point or another that says we have a different view of internet sovereignty and internet sovereignty is a big component of this issue and how we deal with security is a big component of this issue. There is no clear emerging global consensus on the rules of the road here. And you know, I have to say I'm a little, you know, you're not rising to break, but you know, I have to say I'm a little concerned that the United States of America is not gonna lead that process for the foreseeable future if the incoming president actually encouraged a foreign government to hack his opponent. Well, we need to, but we need to lead this process because I think there are actually things that you could get like-minded countries do agree on, right? Because these are, for the most part, countries that are increasingly reliant on the internet for commercial and personal and governmental functions, right, and moving even towards further reliance, right? And so there should be a number of kind of rules of the road, things that should be allowed, not allowed, that would be in the joint interest of countries that are increasingly reliant on the internet. And I think there's actually a lot of this, but it won't happen if the United States doesn't lead it. We're never gonna happen. I agree with him, and that's why I brought up early on to look at things like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Countries protect their internal territorial waters. They protect territorial waters within some proximity of their coastlines. These are very difficult things, but they do have to do with being able to use the waters of the world for commerce, for the free flow of goods. Everybody doesn't agree, but a convention exists. And so I think, you know, you need the coalition of the like-minded, but you've gotta develop norms and conventions. I'll get everybody out. Obviously there are countries that don't know who'll regard the internet as something to be policed by the state, and to be used in an offensive way, right, to pursue their national interests, but there's a... And there's more than one net in that. Well, but it goes back to, you know, it goes back to, Moises and I were out at dinner the other night, experts and pundits talking about the world, and you talked about the vital importance of experts, and the reason that people attack experts. But, you know, this populist wave has had other consequences.  But this is an example where the populist impulse against globalization actually exacerbates a threat dramatically, because there is a global commons whether they want it or not, and the threats come from that. And I just maybe want to talk about that a little bit. No, I don't know what to say about that, so ask me another question. You know, I have to say that is a great breakthrough moment in the history of discussing panels here at Davos. Though only the wisest people say I don't know the answer, so give him credit for that.  No doubt, right, and our best partners on this have been the Europeans, right, for the last more than half a century. And absolutely important to keep a sense of solidarity and cooperative spirit and to protect the institutions. And, you know, it's not the topic of this panel, it's been the topic of a number of panels, obviously during the course of this week here, but there are real threats to these institutions right now. And it is- They're not traditional threats. Yeah, and it should cause, obviously, a reflection on the benefits of three quarters of a century of these institutions to the West, right? And the tight focus on preserving them. Well, and I think that's really important, because, you know, in the context of this room, each one of you may be listening to this in a professional light. How does this affect my business or how does this affect my government? But it affects each one of you. There is nobody in this room who has not been impacted by the consequences of cyber attacks, whether it's changing the security on your phone or having been hacked or having your company been hacked or having an election that affects the future of your country be hacked or having the consequences of that election actually threaten something as fundamental as the Atlantic Alliance or the global system. And one of the things that we recognize here is that in order to address this very, very personal threat requires global collaboration, asking the right questions, starting at the philosophical root of those questions, asking what kind of a global society we wanna be in this new era, moving forward to what are the rules of the road, then figuring out how to implement those and how to develop the political will and the political mechanisms to do it, the public-private capacity to collaborate as never before, the multilateral capacity to collaborate as never before. In other words, you know, look at the poll that you took. 96% of you said the First Cyber War has already begun. 4% of you are ornery or hit the wrong button. Okay, but the reality of this is that we are in this era, it is changing your lives, it is immensely complex to address, it is not peripheral, and it is great that people like each one of these folks on this panel are addressing them. Hopefully next year we can have a panel that's got more nationalities represented on it and approaches it more as a global problem because it is a global problem and more truly as a public-private problem. But these discussions are necessary, smart people like these are necessary, please join me in thanking. Oh my gosh, I just did a five minute wrap up that was building to a crescendo. Why don't I take it from the global to the micro? Yeah. 10 seconds on this? Yes. Every individual has a responsibility in the cybersecurity area because it's a cliche, but it's true that the system is only as strong as the weakest link and anyone who doesn't by the end of this weekend have dual factor authentication on their phones is really asking for it. Okay, so I was trying to have a uplifting emotional moment. Tom in his great fashion is offering you a practical tip that is probably more useful than what I was saying. Thank Tom, thank Moises, thanks everybody. Thank you.