Hello everyone. I'd like to welcome you today to the 10th annual undergraduate economics debate presented by the Department of Economics and the Undergraduate Economics Club. I'm Zach Baers, a junior political science and economics major and I will be your moderator today. I hope you find the debate engaging and the evidence convincing and informative. This afternoon these students will be debating the motion intellectual property is necessary to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. In support of the motion is the team of Mel Abdul Mutalib, class of 2017, Aaron Cooper, class of 2015, Victor Padachak, class of 2014, and Stephanie Staudenmeier, class of 2015. Against the motion is the team of Martin Gall, class of 2016, Jonathan Lab, class of 2015, Keith Malat, class of 2015, and Andrew Randall, class of 2016. I'd also like to introduce our judges. We have returning Bill Troy, class of 1976, uh, Lisa Deforge, class of 1987, uh, James Santucci, class of 2013, and James Keller, class of 1985. The rules of the debate are as follows. First, the team in support of the motion arguing in favor of intellectual property protection will have 15 minutes to present their argument, followed by the team in opposition. This time is divided equally among the three members of the team. We will have a five-minute period of deliberation for each team, followed by rebuttals. During the rebuttals, the team in opposition will send up members first, three members for three minutes each, followed by the team in support. Then the judges will be able to ask questions. Um, for each question, the teams will have two to three minutes to deliberate, and then a member of the team in support will give a two-minute answer, followed by the team in opposition, reversing the order for each question. Um, the judges will then have five minutes to deliberate, followed by the announcement of the winner and closing remarks. Without further ado, we can begin with the team in support. Uh, good afternoon to the judges and fellow audience. Uh, for today's debate, under the motion of intellectual property should be the protection of intellectual property is necessary to promote the progress of science and useful arts. We in the affirmative argue in the advocacy of the motion under three premises, which is number one, reasoning under Perlani's perspective, number two, economic impact of intellectual property, and number three, the practicality of intellectual property. Before we move on to my first point, which is reasoning under intellectual property, I would like to define the motion word by word. And the two terms that I feel needs to be stressed on in this debate is intellectual property and science and useful arts. We define intellectual property as a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as manuscript or design, to which one has rights and may apply for a pattern, a trademark, copyright or trade secrets. Essentially, it is the ownership of ideas and control over tangible or visual representation of the aforementioned ideas. And science and useful arts, we believe as a 19th century term, and we acknowledge its constitutional origins. For this, we follow the Supreme Court's definition of science and useful arts of which under Golan Russell Holder, they have defined it as a form of knowledge or learning and manufactured craft. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen as whole, we define this motion as a legal or any form measure with the intention of preserving any creative work of which one has applied for copyright, trademark, trade secrets or patents to help support and encourage a continued qualitative improvement of knowledge and manufacturing craft. Now, beloved audience, I believe we should move on to my point, which is reasoning under Kalpalani's perspective. As the basis for my argument, I believe change under Kalpalani's perspective is initiated under the state to produce a competitive capitalist economy. This implies economically fictitious commodities such as land, labor and money will subordinate the subsistence and substance of the economy into the market. This therefore establishes a market society which occurs when society decides to maximize their own utility as well as when price is adjusted according to the market. Kalpalani believes that this creates unsustainability as the market society causes dislocations in the market. Under the double movement, where the economy tries to separate from society, we see social protectionism to be necessary in the state society. Therefore, historically, since we know that this industrial revolution has shown downsides where the poor have been transgressed in terms of their health, their financial stature and their abilities, we know historically that social protectionism is necessary as the capitalist economy and the free economy will cause others without protectionism to be marginalized. Now similarly, since intellectual property is seen as a fictitious commodity and is highly regarded as a fictitious commodity, which can be defined as any non-labor produced goods that are bought and sold similar to any other commodities, we believe intellectual property is necessary. In this theory of embeddedness, which we could see that the economy is not separate from political institutions and any other institution, we know intellectual property must be protected to avoid repercussions of the industrial revolution for two factors, morality and utility. And under this, we could see the John Lockean assertion that morality is important to help us in promoting science and useful arts, which will at the end of the day help us in our progress. On top of that, protection is necessary for the basis of utility as people will be more satisfied with the production of goods. We understand that intellectual property as the patent of office, as the U.S. patent and trademark office has shown us, allows for greater production and without intellectual property, we understand that there will be under production of goods. For this, we believe that monetarily and socially intellectual property is important to be protected. Thank you. My predecessor had spoken of, I will be talking about how the intellectual property rights are necessary for the growth and sustainability of mankind. Over the past two centuries, according to Wolfe, world population has grown six fold since before that. During this time, world GDP has also grown almost 50 fold and GDP per head has grown almost 10 times. In these two centuries alone, we have had growth that has been exponential and it's been faster than any other growth that we have ever seen in human kind. In numbers, as you can see here, in 1800 years, world GDP only increased several hundred billion dollars from year one BCE to 1800. However, in the past two centuries, world GDP has increased from 175 billion to well over 70 trillion in today's dollars. So the question that we're left with here is, how is this growth to be accounted for? How is it possible that in two centuries, we are able to produce so much capital and have so many gains? And the answer is one simple world, capitalism. The introduction of Enlightenment era thinking during the 1700s served as the moral basis under which capitalism was able to be constructed as an economic system. This basis also prompted the introduction and the growth of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution helped to bring a world production to an alarming speed hitherto unseen anywhere. And through this, it helped raise the standard of living by providing new jobs and new forms of income for people throughout the entirety of the world. In these past two centuries, humankind has made more scientific, technological, and intellectual breakthroughs than ever before. Capitalism and the underlying idea of intellectual property rights on which capitalism is based serve as the primary causes for all of the growth that we have experienced. Capitalism is a system that rewards people via profit. You are able to market the ideas that you come up with and you have the potential to turn them into money. People are incentivized to produce because of this profit motive. People work for their own benefit. This incentive that is given to people under this capitalist system is only protected because of intellectual property rights. People are inherently rationally selfish and they will seek to do work that is of greatest utility to them. Whatever maximizes their own utility and their own happiness is the work that they will engage in. And if they cannot work for their own benefit, they will not work. Under intellectual property rights, people are able to come up with ideas and use them and claim them as their own and then attain the highest utility possible from these ideas. It is the protection of these rights that guarantees that the ideas that a person is able to come up with is theirs and that they can use it to make a profit. Without intellectual property rights there is no profit motive to be had and without profit motive that means that the entirety of the capitalistic system is doomed to failure and the lack of a capitalistic system essentially calls for a vastly deaccelerated process and motion of human advancement. So in summary, intellectual property rights have brought wealth and prosperity to all of mankind at different rates but nonetheless the prosperity is undeniable and the rate at which we have increased prosperity levels over these past two centuries have been far greater than any other rate that we have ever seen in the entirety of human history. Without intellectual property rights, none of this could have been possible and if intellectual property rights were to be taken away the growth of human progress would be lost entirely. Thank you. Welcome again. My name is Stephanie. Now that my partners have clearly demonstrated and performed the, now that my partners have clearly demonstrated the usefulness and importance of IP for growth in our American economy, I would like to get right into the statistics and IP's placement in this U.S. economy. So recently a study was published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Economic and Statistics Administration that resulted in some really interesting facts about U.S. relationship with IP. What they discovered was that in 2010 40 million jobs were reliant on IP protection. These IP intensive industries made up 25 percent of the U.S. workforce. These people, oh I'm sorry, these jobs actually accounted for 35 percent of that year's total GDP, gross domestic product. Now what is the difference between a non-IP intensive worker and an IP intensive worker? IP intensive workers make on average $300 more a week than the non-IP intensive worker. Now this statistic comes because these people are blossoming in innovation. As Obama himself put it, IP is representative of the leading edge of the U.S. economy and the ingenuity of the American people. It is creating something instead of just copycatting. I'd like to talk about one of the most important IP intensive industries, U.S. e-commerce. E-commerce touched over $230 billion this past years with a 13% growth rate. Now the Internet is a business war hog. Without nowadays and stuff, the consumer is not restrained to the store. We can Google and compare. Location doesn't matter anymore. This is an incredible force for competition, but even Google would not be, even Google would not exist without IP protection because internet-based businesses, if you try to create a website and make an internet-based business, what is protected under IP? Well, your web content, your name, your logo, everything. So without IP, what would happen to this giant economy? Well, we would have a million people ripping each other's content consistently, and this would result in a lack of organic filter for Google search engines or anything like that. So what you have then is that a million people are copying each other's websites, and then this will result in a horrible difference between the barriers to competition with the rich and the poor. Because if you think about it then, without an organic filter trying to create an internet business competitively, you would only have the amount of money you put in the sponsors. This is incredibly detrimental for the poor in this economy. Now many argue against IP because they say that without IP it would be a free market, but I'd like to reiterate this fact. Logically this doesn't make sense. And for example, many of the people use as an example against IP, the fashion industry. This is an effort in changing industry, but if you think about it, how hard is it to become a stylist because this is ever changing? Leading name brands are taking these stylist ideas and running with it. So we have these crazy things like game shows like Project Runway and all this other stuff to become a stylist. It's a barrier to competition that you can't get over if you are not a name brand. So what would happen to each of these economies that are based off IP, this 35% of global domestic product? Without IP what would happen to it? Well, I would say that there are many mistakes with IP. Many examples of misuse and all of that. But the majority is protected under it and it protects the majority of the businesses and I'm not really sure if there's a better option. I'm not as tall. I'm Keith and today our team is going to be arguing the side of the opposition. When the founding fathers crafted our country's constitution, one of their goals was to set the foundation for an economy that would be both innovative and dominant. One of the ways they set out to achieve this goal was Article 1, Section 8 Clause 8. It gives Congress the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective works for a limited period of time. The intentions of the men who signed the constitution and therefore approved this clause were honorable. They wanted to ensure that inventors would have a period of time to monetize their original ideas. The thinking was that if inventors were not granted this right, other people could simply take their ideas and reap the benefits of their use without incurring the costs of their creation. This would reduce the incentive to invent and therefore less people would do so. As a result, the rate of innovation would lower, productivity would be dampened and the country's full potential for economic growth would not be realized. This was the thinking of the crafters of our constitution and it was the basic outline argument outlined by the opposition today. Today we must look at the patent paradox. Is this system that is great at rewarding individuals simultaneously helping add to the entirety of our human intelligence? Is the notion that granting somebody exclusive rights to knowledge warranted by its supposed benefits? We argue that it is not. I would first like to demonstrate that intellectual property rights are not only unnecessary to promote progress but that sometimes by willfully declining the legal protections patents guarantee you, innovation can actually be driven. Sometimes patent holders voluntarily share their ideas as a form of market research, an interesting trend that is being employed by large American shoe manufacturers. Designs for shoe models are being deliberately released into the black market. If Reeboks and Adidas are being pirated and Nike's new model is not, they know that it requires further development before they release it into the legal marketplace. Now this benefits both the company and consumers and drives innovation in the footwear industry. And it may seem trivial to discover consumer preferences towards sneakers but it is not outlandish to imagine the same strategy being used in industries with more of a scientific focus. If this is the case intellectual property rights are not only unnecessary to promote scientific innovation but their absence can actually encourage it. The American patent system as we know it today has repeatedly created economic inequalities and inefficiencies. Intellectual property rights incentivize rent seeking which is the process of manipulating political situations and regulatory institutions to increase one share of already existing wealth without actually creating any new wealth. This is inefficient because it entails devoting resources to an outcome that does not increase the overall size of our country's economy. One example of this is patent trolling which is the process of purchasing patents at low cost and either selling them for high prices or using them to launch legal claims against infringing firms. Institutions that participate in trolling do not develop technology or sell products but instead they derive most of their revenue from filing legal claims. The reality is that patent trolling happens all the time. Over the past few years the number of patent trolling cases has increased in both absolute terms and as a percentage of total patent cases filed. Since 2012 litigation with patent trolls has accounted for over half of the total patent cases. When there is rampant patent trolling it both undermines the purpose of intellectual property rights and creates economic inefficiency. Based on research conducted by professors at the Boston University School of Law in 2011 American businesses incurred 29 billion dollars in direct costs from patent trolling litigation. To put this into perspective American businesses spend about 250 billion dollars annually on research and development. This means that the cost of defending against patent trolls is equal to over 10 percent of annual investments in R&D. There's a huge opportunity cost here. The money that is being devoted to these frivolous lawsuits can instead be spent in ways that actually add value to a business such as product creation and improvement bettering customer experiences and building new factories or more efficient machinery. In today's business world patents have become coveted financial assets. Corporations participate in bidding wars on key patents that will drive revenue growth and increase profitability. Small companies do not have the resources to make attractive offers to patent trolls so all of the most valuable patents end up under the control of companies such as IBM and Apple. This is creating monopoly situations as the biggest companies are the only ones who have the patents they need to make the best products. The reward is the right to block out competitors, lower output, and overcharge consumers. The downfalls of the current patent system were not unforeseen by the men who created the infrastructure for it. Thomas Jefferson warned that grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only if at all the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself in its original operation may produce more evil than good. It seems as if the fears harbored by our founding fathers have become a reality. Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Randall forgive me if this gets a little loud. Today the United States is in the thick of an era of patent extremism with this extremism comes an increasing trend toward longer lasting patents protection of abstract ideas and an increasing effort by corporate conglomerates to keep small innovators out of competition. As there is no substantial evidence that increasing intellectual property rights proves direct causation to increase innovation we must come to the realization that intellectual property rights are not necessary rather they have facilitated a system so robust and nebulous that patents have surpassed their threshold of effectiveness and have entered a downward slower trend toward a failed system. Barry Schwartz and Adam Grant of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania elaborate on this idea explaining that there is a point where positive phenomena reach inflection points that watch their effects turn negative. What Schwartz and Grant have discovered is that every beneficial input or resource or advantage whether it be money happiness justice or protection of intellectual property eventually becomes problematic and ineffective. Schwartz and Grant simplify this idea to the elementary statement entitled their work too much of a good thing. This is precisely with the protection of intellectual property rights has become too much of a good thing. Throughout this debate is imperative that we understand that my partners and I are here today to articulate the fact that the status quo is not a be all end all solution to promoting the sciences and useful arts rather patents have become the bane of the United States economic advancement. Derek Kana Forbes elaborates stating Madison obviously warned that all monopolies including copyright must be guarded with strictness angst abuse. Abuse is precisely what we have seen the estimated total number of defendants sued by patent trolls more than tripled from 834 in 2007 to 3401 in 2011. Furthermore according to a study by the United States government accountability office regarding infringement lawsuits the overall number of defendants increased from 2007 to 2011 by an astonishing 129 percent. Look no further than Silicon Valley to see patent extremism at its finest. According to William F. Miller of the Silicon Valley edge during the 1990s the portion of the valley's workforce in the research and design was 10 percent a full two and a half times the national average. Logically with the future of job creation resting many of these startup companies the United States ought to uphold a system to protect these companies ironically the system that we've created has done the opposite. The intellectual property rights that we put in place to promote innovation for small companies has shown little success. In fact increased intellectual property laws have not spurred a surge in innovation or research and design. Rather many large firms have decided to harvest patents as a defensive strategy. An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry showed that many firms use patents more as a horizontal strategy rather than to gain market value from rival firms and assist them in obtaining favorable terms and cross licensing negotiations. Lester C. Thurlow of Harvard Business Law review explains why this is problematic for software-related companies many of which reside in Silicon Valley. He writes, companies such as Intel have big legal budgets to defend what they think is their property but they also are accused of aggressively attacking what others think is theirs in order to create uncertainties time delays and high startup costs for their competitors. The end goal of companies like Intel is to keep disruptive innovation out and they do so by abusing intellectual property rights and using law as an instrument of destruction for startup companies. The GEO explains that the cost of defending one patent infringement lawsuit which excludes any damages awarded was from $650,000 to $5 million in 2011. PMEs are more willing to bring lawsuits based on broad interpretation of their patent claims because they cannot be countersued for patent infringement since they do not produce a product. Essentially intellectual property rights have become a win-win for large corporations who work with PMEs and a Berlin Wall for small companies. A company named V-Lingo epitomizes this story. Mr. Phillips, the head of V-Lingo, worked for three decades to program a speech recognition software similar to what we've seen with Apple's Siri feature. Unfortunately Mr. Phillips was bought abroad to court and he won yet regardless according to the New York Times the suit had cost $3 million and the financial damage was done. Mr. Phillips small company was crushed by this and as he explains we were on the brink of changing the world and before we got stuck in this legal muck. If we look to the GEO's analysis of where the most patent infringement claims are filed we see that most cases occur on the west coast of California and more specifically Silicon Valley. Mr. Phillips story is not an anomaly. The same story is happening for all sorts of startups across the country. Disruptive innovation is the touchstone of economic advancement in regards to today's economy. Unfortunately due to intellectual property rights companies similar to Mr. Phillips are being crushed by patent protections from PMEs and the calomits that work with them. Our focus on intellectual property rights has become so rooted, so rooted in protecting everything under the sun that it has manifested itself into a broken system that keeps the powerful on top and the innovators out of the question. So much so that startup companies typically stay as far away from patents as possible. Michael J. Muir expands on this saying just 24 percent of patent startups, 24 percent of venture-backed startups had any patents within five years of receiving financial. Judges today we must look at the overarching goal of this resolution. Please make a vote today for future B-lingos and more importantly the future of America's economy. Thank you. Good afternoon. Today we are grappling with the idea of intellectual property rights and whether the purpose is still relevant in modern society. Some may say we have touched upon the most conceivable outcomes of a world with such laws but I offer that we have yet to truly ask ourselves the largest and most fundamental question that is the keystone to this entire discussion. The question is what type of civilization do we want to become? Are we merely profiteers who are blinded by our own ambitions or are we a group of beings who together can build a truly wonderful world? I argue that we strive to be the latter but through action we are the former. The pharmaceutical industry is a strong example of this particular reality. The pharmaceutical industry is understandably tied to the discussion about intellectual property rights. Patents have traditionally been a way to incentivize companies to find research and development. However intellectual property protection in the pharmaceutical industry has repeatedly created negative outcomes for the people who are supposed to be beneficiaries in medical research. Pharmaceutical companies regularly report huge profit margins regardless of their claims that patents are absolutely necessary to ensure their survival. What intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry have brought about is a monopolistic market that effectively prevents financially strained individuals from receiving the care that they deserve. In April of 2013 the Supreme Court heard a case brought against the molecular diagnostic company Myriad Genetics. The association molecular pathology filed suit challenging the validity of Myriad's patenting of two genes they had isolated.  Information contained within these genes can be used to improve breast cancer detection prevention techniques. Since Myriad had patented the genes other companies could not test their patents could not test their patents or patients for them. Before the case was brought to the Supreme Court intellectual property rights created a situation that prioritized corporate profits over the health of our country's citizens. Myriad ended up losing the case and numerous medical providers now offered the genetic test. Sometimes though the negative outcomes brought about by intellectual property rights have a longer lasting effect. In 1980 the court case Diamond versus Chakrabarty ruled that genetically modified organisms could be patented. Shortly thereafter a Harvard University biologist was granted a patent for a mouse that had been genetically modified to be susceptible to breast cancer. The mouse proved to be a useful way to examine the effects of breast cancer and test different treatment options. Any other private researcher who wants to use the genetically modified mouse for his or her own research must first pay large royalties to Harvard. These royalties are often in the millions of dollars. Even though these patents were issued in the late 80s Harvard continues to garner payments from researchers who wish to improve the quality of breast care cancer patients receive. This is undoubtedly stymied in the progress of medical research. Pharmaceutical companies downplay the negative externalities that are brought about by their intellectual property rights while at the same time overstating the importance of patents as assets. Is it so far fetched to imagine a world in which medical research is driven not by promises of executive compensation but by working towards the goal of bettering the lives of our fellow human beings. Research funded by the National Institute of Health has led to huge advancements in the fight against cancer heart disease and other illnesses. NIH funded research has led to nearly 100 Nobel prizes. This type of scientific research was not incentivized by promise of executive rights over their findings. In fact the incentive was just the opposite. The men and women who have made these advances in the field of medicine hope that their ideas are not proprietary. They hope that their ideas are copied as much as possible so that their positive effects can be far reaching. Time and time again the legal protection of intellectual property rights has created economic inequalities and inefficiencies dampening economic innovation. Is it possible that the concepts on which the edifice of intellectual property rights was built need to be reconsidered? Based on the repeated failures of the current system it is evident that the intellectual property rights are not not necessary to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Thank you. Hi again at this point both teams will have five minutes to deliberate and then the team in opposition will send up three members for three minutes each for rebuttals and the team in opposition will have nine minutes to rebutt. Thank you. Okay the first thing I'd like to address is when you put up a chart of GDP growth in America over time and there was an exponential growth at one point and I think this was in the second speech you said that this had to be attributed to something and then you logically concluded that because it has to be attributed to something it must be attributed to the creation of intellectual property rights. I think to attribute all or even most of our country's economic growth in the past two or three hundred years to intellectual property rights is a slam against the creative industrious people who make our economy move. We have incentives other than monetary gain when we create and innovate. We have open source software which is an example of such things people do not make money off open source software rather they see a current technology that they think they can improve so they do so and then they release it for the public to consume without demanding any compensation. Also I think to attribute the growth to IP rights ignores historical components globalization is a big reason for the GDP growth. We've had new markets that we've never been before able to tap into so now we have consumers all over the world who have the opportunity to use American goods and services. Also the internet is a big reason for the GDP growth which is tied into globalization and the internet itself was actually not created out of financial incentive it was created by the government originally as a military strategy and in another speech I'd like to address one more thing you said that a beginner's game is no easy game without intellectual property rights and this tied into when they were talking about e-commerce companies having a hard time if intellectual property rights did not exist but in fact they suffer with intellectual property rights. Time and time again patent rolls target these small software companies who are producing software that falls under the scope of some abstract idea they've patented so the way that the patent rolls approach the situation is they understand that small businesses don't have a lot of capital or equity so what they do is they force small businesses to agree to a settlement that is less than the amount of money it would take them to fight it in court even if they will win so a small business could be approached by a patent troll and they know that if they went to court and spent two million dollars on legal fees they would win but their business would collapse instead it makes more sense to give the patent troll two hundred thousand dollars take the blow and continue to fight for survival so to suggest that without intellectual property rights small companies and e-commerce companies would suffer i think ignores the reality of what's actually going on thank you i'm going to give a general roadmap i'm just going to flow through all of their overarching arguments which was the carapalangi argument about how a better society and also financial growth is related to patents and also how there's a blossoming of innovation due to patents so let's begin first with the carapalangi argument and they basically said that because of patents they're calling for a better society and that a better society comes from these patents because it protects people and they aren't victimized like innovators aren't victimized however let's look on the opposite side of that and see how people are actually victimized by it on the one hand you have these smaller companies that can either go to court for patent infringement and lose all of their company or just be bought out by these bigger companies on the flip side look at medicine and say i was there was a case where one man patented a gene that um actually did tested for too many false false positives with um birth defects but another company used it and with two other studies they found that they could track down syndrome however then he brought them to court and because of this he's suing them for every nine dollar fee for every nine dollar fee that this test was run in every single hospital so if that actually if he does win in court the cost will more than double to figure out someone has down syndrome so flip that argument now moving on to exponential growth let's look to tim woo of uh columbia law and he says that we've had three decades of astonishing software innovations like the lotus one two three spreadsheet netscape's browser or google search and the patent is responsible for absolutely none of it so what they're trying to relate is all this exponential growth of patents but really you can take patents completely out of the question because these big like some of these software companies even the big ones have acknowledged that they didn't need patents to actually spawn any of this innovation like it would have happened regardless basically the patents have for software companies which is the biggest growing industry right now it's been a failed experiment in innovation policy and an expensive one now let's move on to the fact that they say that there's more blossoming in innovation well if this was true let's look to the fact that michael j mure as i brought up in my speech before states that just 24 percent of ventured back software startups had any patents at all within five years of receiving financing so just as we brought up with the sneakers point many companies are forgoing to even getting patents in the first place because the cost of getting them is a dozen outweigh the benefits of having them in the first place now let's move on to their final point that says that everything would be copied well my argument to this is yes well this really though the only strong like argument that they have for this is that the only companies that really benefit by copyright are ones like disney because if you look at the sunny bone i'm making mouse act of 1998 all this act did was focus on large companies who hold royalties after the author musician or artist is gone and copyright keeps literary music works unavailable because large corporations like disney want to keep a few titles protected to do so the protection has to be extended to all works essentially holding protected work hostage because license and fees are too expensive basically what we've shown today judges is that yes i intellectual property rights might have been something that we need in the past but if we look to the status quo in the future of america where economy is going they are obviously a detrimental factor to our economy they're so detrimental to the smaller startup companies it's basically stifling innovation flip everything that are flip everything our opponents have said and flip it on to our side because we have shown through this entire debate why not having intellectual property rights will bring more innovation and or not necessary thank you hi guys i'm martin i haven't had a chance to talk yet uh and i'm not going to invoke the uh poignée con debates uh well let me start off uh the internet is a very interesting thing uh just as andrew talked and uh not just the internet but you uh sorry stephanie um you made it seem as uh the economy is dependent on copyright it's dependent on intellectual property it it's 40 million jobs 25 unemployment sorry 25 of all employment 35 percent of the gross domestic product but how do we know any of that is actually dependent on intellectual property it's uh basin industries that using the intellectual property but that is not the same thing um you i'm going to quote you internet without ip is internet without economic functionality amazon will disagree because it's i mean it's a retail store and they don't depend they give you physical goods it's not intellectual property and they are making a lot well actually they're not making that much money right now but they don't really know as well maybe someone does um you said there's a lack of a better option um their innovation can come from a variety of sources and from most of human history it happened uh without any need for patents and uh i think we kind of already addressed that there are ways to create competitive spirit and resolve and potential innovators without bestowing the right to hold a monopoly sometimes all it takes to promote innovation is recognition government non-profit and academic organization such as the national institute of health the bill the bill and melinda gays foundation or the noble prize to give one time cash uh prizes to innovators uh creating something rather than copycanning that's another quote that you gave and i think that human human beings uh always will have art will always have signs of some sort because human beings want to explain how the world around them is and getting rid of ip might mean the end of for-profit big budget hollywood films but that does not mean that's the end of film it's the end of uh any kind of research or anything like that and um uh and what about the people who uh actually physically create the goods rather than just the ideas good afternoon everybody i'm erin i also have not spoken yet uh i have a few small things to get out of the way before going into the myriad example that they had brought up um the idea that larger companies are using intellectual property as a club against smaller companies to try and protect the things that they have done this is an idea saying that businesses are doing what businesses do because that's what business does the idea that businesses are trying to protect the things that they have done is the thing that any person would do and certainly the thing that any business should and does do in addition you had mentioned last year there was 3900 uh intellectual property cases that had brought to court that doesn't exactly sound like something that is extremism at this point if you look at the thousands upon thousands and palm thousands of cases that actually go through the american judicial system going to the myriad system where the company had patented the ideas of bracket one and bracket two which is the genes that they were looking for in women to detect breast cancer what they had patented was not an idea they had patented something that was part of the human genome that's not an idea that is something that depending on like personal preferences was come up by either a creator from religion or science that was not a personal creation and the fact that these medical companies and these pharmaceutical companies do what they are doing again that is a question against the judicial system not against the idea of ip and the protection that it offers it has nothing to do like you're questioning the idea that the system is broken not the idea is broken thank you and you with our bottle here um so i'd like to address uh first some of uh clarifying what i said about internet-based business because i don't think that my competitors here really understood so when you create a website as in when amazon created its page the page that you go to you are putting in a ton of effort in coding and in writing your content in providing descriptions for those products that they even sell all of which are covered under ip protection if we did not have this protection then we would have people copying amazon as in an entirely new site that is identical to amazon why else wouldn't they do it it's a successful business and if that is legal it's money to be made right um so also the stats that were provided were from an economical and statistical study um by the u.s patent and trade office and ip intensive industry was defined as industries that would lose profit without ip now i'd like to address one of the problems with my opponents uh argument here they talked about a lot of um patent infringement cases which went up exponentially in these past years right well this has gone up um along with the demand for ip in general um wipo the world uh intellectual property organization actually released a conference uh recently um where larry curry said that the demand for ip has gone up immensely now we have patent infringement cases going up ip demand going up and innovation going up all of these things are completely correspondent to each other meaning that if anything that argument would mean that we should in uh um we should add more intellectual property rights we should improve upon it and and push it more for innovation and um to match the demand so i'll let victor talk now so i'll try and keep this short and sweet so throughout this entire debate uh your arguments have been centered entirely on the problems that the u.s patent system has had with preventing economic progress and we could i will say that yes there are probably problems that the u.s patent system has created and continues to create today however the problems that we experience in today's world are not indicative of saying that all of intellectual property rights as an institution should be completely discarded yes there have been abuses of the system but again this is of the system as we have it created today changes can be made and probably should be made but this is again no way to say that intellectual property rights themselves should be gotten rid of as well your argument really hasn't provided a single real reason against intellectual property rights themselves only against the faultiness of the u.s institution as we have it today in addition you had argued that uh intellectual property rights for an individual is not necessary to protect the growth of human progress and i would like to counter by saying that intellectual property rights are basic human rights each human has the right to life liberty property in the pursuit of happiness and intellectual property rights are just like any other kind of property what's the difference between property that's created with muscle and property that created with the mind it seems to be exactly the same to me slaves didn't have the right to the products of their labor and as a result they didn't have the rights to their life and to liberty and so by taking away intellectual property rights are getting rid of them you are essentially taking away basic human rights on which all other human rights are predicated because the right to life and liberty cannot exist without the basic rights to your own property so in conclusion not only has your argument missed the point of what we are debating today but some of the points that you make are essentially questioning the necessity of basic human rights now we have a question and answer period from our judges um i requested the judges ask their questions here from the podium so that all of you can hear it and the camera picks it up as well um after each question is asked both teams will get one minute to deliberate and then be able to deliver a two minute response since we ended with them we will start with a team in opposition i guess i gotta adjust this again hello so just a point of information i actually know him jeff bezos and yeah they do a lot of trademark work big time in fact i think they own the trademark to the shopping cart itself um back in i met him first in 1995 okay here's a question uh and this is for group two would you explain how a company would get a return on investment when they've been involved with a 10 to 12 year development and testing cycles such as pharmaceuticals um and also would you explain the cost of a drug going down when in fact a lot of the resistance is probably some of the medical system doesn't want to pay for those tests and it won't be reimbursed by insurance so two parts on the pharmaceutical side all right two to answer the question uh while not having intellectual property would have dramatic effects on the structure of how we get research done and i encourage you to think of it an alternative mindset of uh ways you can compensate research uh well an alternative model to how research should be done you can fund research you can through government you can fund research to through grants you can fund research by a lot of means it does not have to be through a private company uh perhaps you can uh give a grant to a private company but ultimately the the research does not need to be done by a company and could be encouraged by government um an idea is that what if all drug pharmaceutical uh factories everything like that they're all generic there is no um uh brand drug but the actual research who create to innovate drugs comes from different sources and that's public so the actual like uh factory behind it physically making the drugs can be private and the funding for research can be public so i have a i have one question for each side um we'll start with the pro side um um one of the important historical events in the history of intellectual property for you was the united states industrial revolution uh to the extent that that was largely based off of stolen factory plans from england to what extent do you think it could be attributed to intellectual property protection and for the con side um you mentioned that there is a tripling of patent trolling from 2007 to 2012 uh the question is was there an institutional change in that period that led to this sort of behavioral change and if not to what extent can intellectual property be blamed and to what extent do you think we need a different explanation uh to jamie's question i say touche but the way it worked out with the british idea of the factories they were these large full-scale heavy machines that were untenable and something for our fledgling economy something that was not something that we could manage what happened was when we went in there and we took the idea we had to completely change it to actually modify it to our smaller more rural societal standards so yes the idea was certainly copied and i can promise you other countries also stole that idea and the idea being able to generate new ideas comes from the ability to reference other people's ideas certainly i will not you have me on that sir but the modification of the idea is not something that we're talking about that is what the thing the intellectual property protects that modification to something that is more suitable to a new environment and allowing that to be fostered that is what how it was created thank you to answer your second question as far as like an institutional change i know what actually has happened is opportunity was recognized um working and what's been going on is we're trying to work it out of the system but we needed to really define the scope of what has been patented because there's just way too many abstract ideas and that's what allows um that's what allows trolling to happen in on such a large scale and i mean honestly the only three things that were actually the three rights we have are life liberating the pursuit of happiness not property so i mean those things kind of need to be defined and protected and i think with those in mind we can use those ideas to protect that so thank you that's a question there's a lot of pressure on me uh-oh better be a good one next year there you go okay so i have a very simple question for both groups i don't know which one to answer first if you own property do you have to hold on to it or can't you rent it through a process of what's called royalties or licensing fees i think the best example is very simple mcdonald's mcdonald's offers franchises worldwide they don't build all their stores they simply say use our model and you can make money but it's all your investment and i'm i just like each team to think about why aren't royalties part and licensing part of this discussion why would a company simply hoard all of its intellectual property thank you it's like we met here before uh to the question that was asked and in the very brief amount of time that we had to think about it i mean yes of course i i we the idea of intellectual property you have the uh you have the ability to buy a home and you can sell that home you can buy a home and you can rent that home if you come up with an idea and you patent that idea and someone else has the resources to actually make that idea flourish and actually help not only you by benefiting by making it much cheaper that actually overcoming that wall actually getting it out there is more it is exactly your right to actually make sure that your property goes where you choose it to go and that just goes back to the idea that you have you have the rights to everything that you either thought up or purchased and making sure that that is actually preserved is something that needs to happen first of all um licensing has been a part of intellectual property rights for a very long time and it seems intuitive right you don't have to buy a whole patent a business can make a much smaller expenditure and use it for the time that they need it and then they don't have to hold on to this expensive piece of paper um when teslo is actually creating alternating current um he patented he licensed his intellectual property to westinghouse so we have seen it time and time again but i would argue that in the current system it still creates exclusionary situations because a lot of times patents licensing fees are very high and small businesses still can't afford it and there are also sometimes other political factors involved that informally prevent small businesses from being able to license intellectual property so it is a very good idea and concept and it has worked many times but uh other times it creates exclusionary situations and uh perpetuates monopolies now the judges will have five minutes to select a winner um while we present the t-shirts and certificates to our debate participants so as to quick note um we've been doing this for 10 years and i just want to applaud the club and also the faculty for sponsoring this for the past 10 years it's always been a real pleasure to come up here and hear such wonderful arguments on both sides so applaud everybody i'd also like to say this was one of the best prepared groups we've seen in all these debates over the many years it was good data it was good analysis going back and as a former member representing the university of the debate union back of the 70s again the 70s not 76 sounds a little bit better um really did well really followed the format well really well prepared and so i really do appreciate that as well this is always the hardest part but overall our judgment was for and everybody did a great job thank you to thank everyone for coming out uh any undergraduates in the room stick around we've got a dinner and an award ceremony right down the hall everybody everybody can stick around great okay i'd like to thank our debaters of course um our judges bill troi lisa de forge james santucci and james keller and first the department of economics the undergraduate economics club and all of the alumni who came out for today's alumni advisory board meeting so thank you all this is the end of our debate have a great night


Chronic kidney disease, CKD, is associated with a higher prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, GERD. This study found that patients with CKD had a higher rate of GERD and its complications such as esophageal stricture and baritisophagus. Additionally, patients with early stage CKD had a higher prevalence and odds of developing these complications. This article was authored by Xiaoyang Wang, Zachary Wright, Eva Depattentacket, and others.


Hello, I'm Stacey. I'm a GIS analyst with a natural capital project, and I'm glad that you've joined me to learn some techniques for working with the geospatial data that's used by the Invest Ecosystem Services Modeling Toolkit. In this episode, we'll talk about creating watersheds. To get the most out of this tutorial, I highly recommend following along in your own GIS session. In this video, we will demonstrate techniques in QGIS, and we'll be working with some sample data, which is linked to on the webpage for this video. Also in this episode, we'll be using one of the Invest tools, so make sure that Invest is installed and working. In several previous episodes, including preparing the DEM, we worked with data in Nepal, so we will continue with that location in this video. If you happen to have a QGIS session saved from those earlier episodes in Nepal, you can use it again now. If you don't, that's totally fine too. Just open up a new session. So if you haven't already, now is a good time to pause this video, download the sample data, unzip it, and bring up a QGIS session before continuing. Creating watersheds is the last step in processing the hydrology related layers that go into Invest models. As a reminder of the workflow, we usually start out with raw DEM tiles, which we merge into a mosaic. Then we check the mosaic for missing data. We project it to the project's coordinate system, fill sinks, and verify that it makes an acceptable stream network. At this point, we probably feel comfortable using it for our analysis, so we can commit to creating the watershed that we'll use for our area of interest in the model. A watershed represents the upslope area that creates streams that drain into a particular point on the landscape. Often when we are running hydrology models, we are interested in evaluating the landscape that provides water, sediment or nutrient to a reservoir, a drinking water facility, a community, or some other point of interest. This point is called the outlet of the watershed, and it's indicated by a star in the map that you see here. And in this map, that's actually the town of Belmopon, the capital city of Belize. Even if we are not focused on a specific point, most of the hydrology models recommend that we provide an entire watershed as the area of interest. Because if we don't use a watershed, but instead use something like an administrative boundary, it will probably artificially cut off some of the drainage area. Interrupting the flow path so that the result does not capture all of the water, sediment or nutrient is actually contributing to water quality or water quantity in the streams within the landscape that you're studying. In the example that you see here, we were working with partners in the western part of Belize, and we were informing policy that would only affect Belize. But there was a focus on water related services. And it turns out that a large part of the watershed draining into the city of Belmopon is actually in Guatemala. There's even one major river, the Mopon, down here in the southern part that starts out in Belize, travels into Guatemala, and then comes back into Belize. So the water quality and quantity that arrives to Belmopon is actually very much dependent on what happens in Guatemala too. So even though we were informing policy in Belize, we actually modeled this whole watershed that you see. And if you look at where the border is, if we had only modeled hydrology inside of the border of Belize, we would only be seeing part of the picture. So we can see how the rivers would be artificially cut off. And especially we would be missing the effect of the Mopon River, which would just drain off the map, instead of contributing water to Belmopon. One side note is that right now we are only talking about watersheds. But two of the urban models flood risk and stormwater retention can take either watersheds or sewer sheds as the area of interest. Now where a watershed represents natural topography flowing to a single point, a sewer shed represents an area in an urban landscape where all of the sewers drain to a single point. Maps of sewer sheds are not based solely on topography or digital elevation model, so we will not be covering them in this tutorial. What we will cover is creating watersheds from a DEM using the invest tool delineated. Now, of course, there are many other tools that we can use to create watersheds, including those provided by our GIS software. And if you have a favorite one that works for you, great, feel free to use it. I use delineated because it is simple to use, it works well, and it can generate watersheds that overlap, which is sometimes useful for ecosystem service analysis, like when your points of interest all lie on the same river. The geospatial inputs to the tool are a digital elevation model or DEM and the point location of the outlet or outlets that you're generating watersheds for. It's important to make sure that you use the same DEM to create your watershed as you are using as input to the hydrology model. So in other words, the same DEM as you're using as input to the SDR, NDR, or seasonal water yield models. Because if you use a different source for your watershed, it might not line up correctly with hydrology that is generated by the model, and the results that are aggregated within that watershed will not be accurate. Delineated also takes in a threshold flow accumulation or TFA value, which is used to create the stream network. Threshold flow accumulation is a number that defines the number of upstream pixels that must flow into a particular pixel for it to be considered part of the stream. Another way of thinking about this is that it defines the upslope contributing area that's required for a stream to form. Large values of TFA create a stream network with fewer tributaries, like you see in the picture on the top, and a small values of TFA create a stream network with more tributaries, like you see in the image on the bottom. For creating watersheds, it's important to choose this value so that the streams are created in the right place to correspond with your points of interest. The next input, snapping distance, is also related to streams. It's very common that the location of our outlet point is not exactly on top of a stream generated by the model. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but when it does happen, the watershed that is created by the tool tends to be extremely small, much smaller than in real life, because it's not recognizing the whole stream network flowing to that point. The snapping distance allows the tool to search for the nearest stream around the outlet point and move or snap the outlet point to that stream so that a correct watershed can be generated. If you are only using one or a small number of outlets in the tool, you could instead manually edit the location of the outlet so that it lies exactly on the stream that the model generates. But if you have a lot of points, or you just don't want to manually edit the points, you can use this feature. The output of delineated are the watersheds flowing to your outlet points. And as you can see in this map, it can make many watersheds at a time, or it can just make one if that's all you need. For one of our projects, I made thousands of watersheds using this tool. What you'll notice about many of the watersheds in this particular example is that they do run up against the country border of Mozambique. But in reality, they drain across many other African countries. Now for this project, the stakeholders decided only to model within the border of Mozambique with the understanding that most of the water flowing to these dams originates outside of its borders. We actually did this differently than we did in Belize. Okay, let's go look at our sample data in the GIS. All right, let's open a file explorer to the sample data folder, which is called creating watersheds data. And inside this folder are two layers. The DEM that we've prepared for use and invests, and a shape file with a point location for a dam, which we will create a watershed for. Let's bring both of these layers into the GIS. DEM filled dot TIF, and dam intake dot SHP. I'll change the symbology for the dam intake so we can see it better. So right click and choose properties. And then I'm going to change the size to four millimeters. And give it a color of yellow, and then click okay. Now let's use these layers as inputs to delineate it. You can launch delineate it in the same way that you do other invest tools. I'll do this through the window start menu. And if you're using Mac, then you'll know how to do it a bit differently. So we'll just go into the invest model folder. And scroll down to delineate it and open that tool. All right, for the workspace, let's navigate to where we want our output files to be written. Let's create a new folder. And I'm going to call it delineate it, delineate it underscore output. Okay, you can call it something different if you like, but I'm going to create a new folder called delineate it output and select that as your workspace. For the results suffix, let's keep it simple and just enter the string down dam. So for digital elevation model, let's drag in the layer dem filled dot tiff from our file explorer. And then this next box detect poor points, we're going to leave this box unchecked. If you select detect poor points, the model will try to find outlets based on where streams flow off the edge of the raster. But we have our own outlet point already created. So we'll use that instead, and we'll put that in the outlet features box. So let's drag in dam intake dot shp. We will check the box next to skip invalid geometries. This way, if the tool finds an outlet point or polygon that is invalid, it will skip it and move on to the next one. If this box unchecked, then the tool throw an error if it encounters an invalid geometry, and it will not continue. Right, we will also check the box next to snap points to the nearest stream. As I mentioned earlier, it is common that our outlet points are close to, but not quite on top of the streams that are generated by invest. We can tell the tool to snap our points to the nearest stream before delineating the watershed. When we check this box, now two more inputs are required. The first is the threshold flow accumulation, which is the same that we use in the water models. And for this example, we're going to use a value of 1000. Next is the pixel distance to snap outlet points. The value is given in a number of pixels, and we will give it a value of five. This means that the tool should search for five pixels in all directions of the outlet point to find the nearest stream. Since our pixels are 30 meters in size, this equates to searching in a radius of 150 meters around each point. Sometimes you need to try several values for this input before all of your outlet points snap correctly, so just note that you may need to play with this. All right, let's hit run. As with other tools that process hydrology layers, delineate it can take a while to run. So feel free to pause this video until yours is finished. Once that tool is finished, let's click the open workspace button in the output folder. The first three rasters are related to hydrology processing, the field DEM, the flow accumulation, and the flow direction. The next output is pre processed geometries, which is in G package format. This is the set of outlet geometries that the model found to be valid and created watersheds for. Now we'll look at the rest of the outputs in the GIS. First, let's bring in streams underscore damn dot tip and check it out. Now as usual when zoomed out like this the streams look very chopping. But if we zoom in, we see that they're actually continuous, which is good. If they were not continuous, we would need to do work on our DEM. And there are separate video tutorials that cover the DEM and creating streams. So please see those for more information. Now let's look at the watershed created by the tool. Back in our file explorer, bring in watersheds underscore damn dot G package into the GIS. And also bring in snapped outlets down. Right, and I'm going to zoom back out to the watershed layer. Let's change the symbology of the watershed layer so that we can see the streams underneath. I'm going to do a fill color of transparent fill. And I'm going to make the out edge a little bit thicker. And I'm going to choose a bright color that I can see relatively well so you can choose whatever colors work for you. So once we've zoomed to the watershed layer, we can see what it looks like. The tool created a rather large basin that looks reasonable to me based on the stream network. So if you happen to know what the basin should look like, you can critique the watershed that the tool creates, and either adjust some of the input parameters to get a better fit. Or it may be that you need to use a different DEM, because this one doesn't represent your hydrology very well. But for now, we'll just call this watershed good. Let's zoom way in to look at the snapped outlet point. I'm going to change the symbology of mine so that we can see it better. Let's see for this one, I'm going to pick a bright pink. And let's also make sure that the original DEM intake point is visible. So I just moved mine up to the top of the drawing stack. Notice how the original point which is in yellow on my screen was close to but not right on top of the streams that are generated by delineate it. And the snapped outlet which is in pink here is right on the stream. So a good watershed could be created. For homework, I suggest that you rerun delineate it without snapping the original DEM point location. That way you can see the small, strange looking watershed that's often created when the outlets and the streams don't overlap. So that's your homework. Rerun delineate it without snapping the outlet point and look at the difference. Now that we've created the watershed that we use as inputs in the model, we'll generally want to use it to clip our other spatial inputs to the same area of interest. What I usually do is clip the DEM using this same watershed polygon. Then I create a new polygon with a small buffer around the watershed, which I use to clip the other spatial inputs. This is especially important if any of your other spatial inputs are coarse in resolution. This is often the case with climate data, for example. So let's look at a globally available reference evapotranspiration layer from CGIAR. All right, let's go back to our file explorer window. And in the sample data folder is a sub folder called ET0 CGIAR. Now here I've provided just one of the raw datasets from CGIAR, which represents reference evapotranspiration for the month of January. This raster could be used as input to the seasonal water yield model or the urban cooling model. So let's bring this layer into the GIS. And then we're going to zoom back to the extent of the watershed layer. So the resolution of this raster is 30 arc seconds, which is approximately one kilometer at the equator. This is much coarser than 30 meter resolution of our DEM. So let's see what happens when we clip the ET0 raster using the watershed that we just generated. Let's go to the raster menu. And then down to extraction. And open the tool clip raster by mask layer. Our input layer will be the ET0 raster. And then the mask layer is watersheds down, which may already be selected for you like it is for me. And then we can leave all of the other inputs as their defaults. But we need to scroll down to the clipped entry. Which is where we specify our output file. So let's say save to file and navigate to wherever you want to save your output files. I'm going to keep them here in my main tutorial folder for creating watersheds. And I'm going to name the file ET0 underscore 01 underscore clip.tif. And a reminder that the 01 in the file name refers to the data being for the month of January. So it is important to keep this information. Right, let's click save and click on run. Once it's done, click on the close button. And let's look at the clipped ET0 layer. All right, I'm going to turn off some of our other layers so we can really focus on the ET0. In general, it looks pretty good to me. But let's zoom in to look around the edge of the watershed. And I'm going to make sure the watersheds are on top of this ET0 layer. Since the pixel size for the ET0 layer is large, when it is clipped, we end up with a lot of missing data around the edge of the watershed. And this is actually a problem for the model because we want to include all of the area within the watershed so that we capture all of the hydrology correctly. Now by comparison, let's do the same thing and clip the DEM layer to the watershed polygon and see how it looks. So let's open that tool again. Let's go to raster and extraction and clip raster by mask layer. This time our input layer is the DEM. And again, the mask layer is the watershed. Now we'll scroll down to the clipped entry and say save to file. And I'm going to name this file DEM underscore clip dot tiff and click run. Let's give the DEM a new color so we can see it a little bit better. I'm going to go into the symbology and say single band pseudo color. And I'm just going to leave it with this purple color that's there by default. Okay, it doesn't matter which one you choose. Now what we can see here is how well the DEM fills the edges of the watershed. Now this is not surprising since the watershed was created from the DEM. So if we turn on and off the DEM layer, we can really see this difference. And maybe let's move the DEM under our ET zero layer so that we can see the purple from the DEM poking up in the gaps, where we are missing ET zero data. We can see that there are a lot of gaps along the edge where we have DEM, but we have no evapotranspiration data. To fill these gaps, we can create a buffer around the watershed and use it to clip our course input rasters. So let's do that. Let's go to the vector menu and select geo processing tools, and then buffer for input layer. Let's enter our watershed layer. So it should be watershed down. For distance, let's enter two kilometers. This will create a two kilometer buffer around the watershed, which is the distance of two pixels in our ET zero layer. I usually make the buffer size equal to one or two times the largest pixel size of my input layers. In this case, the ET zero layer has a pixel size of one kilometer. So I'm specifying a buffer size of two kilometers. And we'll leave the other inputs as their default. We'll go down to the buffered entry and say save to file. Let's call it watershed underscore two kilometer underscore buffer dot SHP and hit run. All right, we can close this window. And again, I'm going to change the symbology so we can see things better. Let's call color of transparent fill and then set my color to some nice bright value. See maybe something orange. Okay. And say okay. Now we can re clip the ET zero layer with this buffered watershed. So let's go back to the raster menu. I'm going to go ahead and select extraction. And open the tool clip raster by mask layer. The input layer is the original layer, which is ET zero B three zero one dot tip. The mask layer. We want to make sure that we have the buffered watershed so watershed two kilometer buffer. We'll leave the rest of our inputs as default and go down to the clipped entry where we will say save to file. And let's name it ET zero underscore zero one underscore buffer underscore clip dot tip and hit run. And I'm going to move this down so that we can see our watershed outlines more clearly. So if you look closely at the edge of the original watershed, which is shown on my screen in blue, we see that the ET zero layer now completely fills it. There are no gaps of missing data around the edge of the watershed. And that's what we want. We want to make sure that you still need to re project this layer to match the projected coordinate system of the other layers before it can be used in the models, but we won't do that now. And when you enter data into the hydrology model, you will provide the DEM that is clipped to the original watershed, which is our purple one here. We want to provide the coarser layers like ET zero that are clipped to the buffered watershed. So they completely fill the watershed outline. And don't worry that this ET zero layer is now larger than our DEM and larger than the watershed. We have two calculations where all of our input layers have data. So the results should only cover the extent of the DEM, which covers the extent of the watershed, and that is hydrologically complete. Okay, that's enough for this session. We've now covered all of the major steps in creating hydrology inputs to invest models. We've processed the DEM, evaluated the stream network and created the watershed that will be our area of interest. If you have any questions or comments about this episode, we'd love to hear from you on our community forum. There's a link to the forum in this video's webpage, where you can search for previous posts and create a new post under the category of training. I and other techies at Nat Cap will see your post, and we will respond as soon as we can. Thanks for following along.


Welcome back to our channel. My name is Andrea with food inventory adventures and food Our channel is all about the food we do taste test recipes grocery hauls and what's for dinner And I am here today with a Because it's a food haul like a gourmet food haul from world market now if you're not familiar with world market It is a it's like a global retail store. They have furniture and food And goods from all parts of the world And I happen to stop by mine and they are actually going out of business So their food was 10 off, which isn't a lot But I I really like trying different foods as you know, and so I decided to pick up some stuff So I'll start over here with this tin. This is a tin of Really thin ginger snaps And I really like them And so I think these were like $15. No, I'm sorry They were $14 and then they were 10 off and this entire tin is full of thin and crispy ginger snaps So I grabbed that The other thing that I picked up are these Hawaiian kettle style potato chips so for Our honeymoon we went to Hawaii and these were a popular chip that they sold around there and before We left Hawaii and came back home I went to walmart and bought a few more bags of their chips So I was really excited to see them at world market I flipped the bag over to see where the chips were manufactured because I just assumed it was hawaii and they Were made in washington Sadly, but anyway, they're really good. So they were just reminiscent of our honeymoon. So I wanted to grab them Another thing that I picked up were these Fresh chow mein noodles And they're three single servings and they come with their own seasoning packet and that sounded really good to me You guys know that Howard and I really like Asian food and I've never bought any type of these Any of these types of noodles before so I decided I wanted to try that Same thing with these dried noodles There is a recipe that I plan on using and it called for these Asian dried noodles. So I decided to pick those up And then Howard and I we like hot and spicy.  So pick that up And I've showed this before Howard really likes this jerk seasoning And they happen to have that there. So of course I grabbed the bottle because he used the last of them making jerk pork And let's see here Um, now I have had these Ritter Sports before Uh, and I really like them a lot and I like the cornflake one. I know it sounds weird But it's kind of the same as eating a rice crispy treat and it's really good. So pick that up This is something new that I've never seen before. Um, these are Brownie crisp cookie thin and they're super thin Let's see if I can find they are so they're really really thin and it sounded good to me. So I wanted to give those a try And then I also picked up these irish oatmeal biscuits. They look good. See And they sound like they're going to be crispy and they're made with irish butter And then I saw this little bag of minis Choco minis and they are like a buttercracker on one side and then on the other side, they have some milk chocolate and that sounded good And I really like Haribo Coke gummies, but I've never seen the sour and tangy So they have as you can see like some sugar on top and they're supposed to be busy as well So I was excited about that Now these I got for Howard. Um, this sounded right up his alley and he was excited when he saw it These are pineapple rum cashew coconut mix And there they are. That's what it looks like. So there's pineapple cashews cherries Um, what does that say? Oh rum glaze and toasted coconut And then I got a couple of different soup kits. This is a Thai Coconut soup and you just add water and chicken and I think on the bag There's a variation for shrimp. Yeah shrimp. So I'll probably use shrimp with that And then another thing that I saw Excuse me. This is jalapeno cheddar soup and you just add water and milk That sounded good to me. There's a local fish restaurant around here that has like a creamy jalapeno soup And I really like it a lot and I'm hoping this is very similar to it And then the last thing I picked up are these clearly Canadians. So I grew up as a child In the 80s and clearly Canadian was all the rage and I know that they recently brought clearly clearly Canadian back So I got all four the flavors that they had peach black mountain blackberry wild cherry and country raspberry So I'm really excited. I hope it tastes the same as when I was younger You know how you um taste something that you haven't had in a while Excuse me, and it just doesn't taste the same. I'm hoping that's not the case. So So anyway, this is everything that I picked up from world market I may try and go back again before they close Just to see if they've marked down their food even more But this is it for my haul short and sweet. I just wanted to share it with you guys If you haven't subscribed to our channel, I really hope that you'll do so If you like this video, please make sure to give us a thumbs up and we'll see you guys next time


My research agenda at the moment focused on understanding how during brain development molecular programmes, genetic programmes, act in the interplay with spontaneous activity. How these two paradigms can influence each other in defining the diversity of the neurons that we find in the cerebral cortex and the assembly of the circuits that compute all the complex behaviour that we humans can perform. This type of research will allow us to understand how the brain comes about and especially to unveil the role of spontaneous activity in the early phases of brain development and cortical development. This will be not only important for a basic standpoint to understand the grammar to which the brain is established but also to prevent and potentially treat some disorders like early infantile epilepsy. The type of technologies that are involved in carrying out this project span from single cellomics to decoded high-resolution diversity of the neurons and the molecular factors that translate this diversity into different functions of the neurons, coupled to calcium imaging and circuit analysis on MEA to understand how at the functional level this diversity is encoded into the nascent circuits. I think nowadays European research faces bigger challenges in trying to focus its agenda on health in general, personalized medicine, rare disorders and especially finding a framework to integrate all the big data that has been now incorporated in many different fields of science and try to leverage of this knowledge to produce faster and new degree of understanding how our body works and our brain in particular for me but also how disease come about and how they can be tackled.


So Garry, you were here in 2015 last year at the TradeWise Gibraltar Chess Festival. You won it convincingly, decisively, and now you're back in 2016. How has the year been for you, chess-wise, personally, tell us a little bit about this journey in the middle? 2015 was a very good year for me overall. I started here with a win, of course, last year here in Gibraltar, and I won a tournament in Zurich, won the US Championship. I think I basically started off winning our time for the first four or five events that I played last year. So it was a very good start, and then kind of around the middle of the year I started playing a little bit less. There just weren't a lot of tournaments to compete in, and so the second half wasn't quite as good. I still had some decent results. I won this tournament in Vegas, I think you were there as well, the millionaire chess. The end didn't quite go as well as I would have liked, but still overall, when all was said and done, by the end of the year I picked up maybe nine or ten points, and at some point maybe in June or July I picked up something like 30 or 35 points. So kind of the last like one or two tournaments that I played and kind of obscured the overall picture, but that being said it was still quite good for me. So I had a good year. There's been a lot of talk about how in the last year or so your outlook towards the game and your psychology part of it especially has evolved a lot and changed a lot. What do you give us a little bit of your take on that? I'm not in a way a hopeless romantic, I think a lot of people when you talk about chess they tend to have this feel like there's something special to the game or there's something really different. I think when you look at a lot of top players it's more about being pragmatic and understanding that when you get opportunities you try and take advantage of them, but for the most part you're not going to have these brilliancies or these games that growing up at least I looked at a lot. I think some of the games I looked at of the old players from the 1800s up until probably even Tyler Spask, there was a lot of creativity in some of the games and a lot of the players as well, but nowadays it's a lot less of that and it's much more about just simply trying to get positions that you can play and so because of that it's mostly about being practical and pragmatic than just trying to find something really interesting and just play a great game. So what do you say earlier you were always trying to make chess into something more beautiful than? Yeah, I think a lot of people at least if you were asked them. Growing up certainly you have a view that it's very beautiful, there's a lot to it and I think now especially as I get a bit older and I've been playing for so long, my view has shifted. It's more about trying to optimize and get the best result as opposed to trying to play the most interesting chess. Higari now, last year you told us coming back to Gibraltar in this tournament that the one person that you were looking forward to playing was top-low, what about this year? Maybe I didn't mention this, but there was also one other player I wanted to play. I think at the end I mentioned that I was unhappy that David Haldent won his last round game because I wanted to play him in a playoff so I could beat him and make up for the draw that he got against me and I think round seven it was last year. So I think he's going to be here, maybe not, but I assume he is, I wouldn't mind playing him. Otherwise I think just in general it would be nice to play against some of the top guys like Vishy or Maxime because Maxime especially is a very creative player, tends to come to all these turns very well prepared and he plays a style of chess that I think is in some ways missing from the top level of the game these days. You said something really interesting, so it's clearly you don't forget easy but if you were to play David is going to be here and would that play in your mind what happened last year when you were playing against David? Do you think that would make you feel that you have to go that extra mile in this game? Not really, I mean that's another thing with chess it's very important to remember but also in a way to forget in that when you're playing a game you kind of have to be focused on the game itself as opposed to thinking about what happened in the past or what's going to happen in the future, it's all about being in the present. So certainly at least before the game I'll think about during the game it definitely won't be at the forefront of what I'm thinking about. And what about this attraction with this open tournament format that is suddenly there with all you top elite players? This year we've also got Wishi who's playing here and there's this whole movement where it's shifting from just the round job into being open to playing this tournament, why do you think this is happening? I think there are a couple of reasons, I think first of all it's much more economical for organizers and sponsors when you have open tournaments as opposed to closed tournaments for many reasons. First of all I think the cost is much lower but secondly and probably more importantly you have so many more players that you have a much wider variety in the games and the positions that you reach whereas when you have tournaments with maybe 10 players very often you're going to have the same sorts of openings and you're going to have a lot more draws and open tournaments when you have so many different players who play all different styles they're going to have more decisive games they're just I think more interesting for spectators. And what about the unpredictability factor of who you're playing against not having any idea of not being in your comfort zone when it comes to opening? Is that something that bothers the top player this feeling of almost wanting to having to win on demand at times? Well I think for me it's a bit easier because I grew up with this system for me growing up I played pretty much exclusively in opens until it's maybe 2700 strength so for me I mean obviously I've been then you know the top level for some time now so I've gotten used to preparing before games and you know even months in advance but with that being said I don't mind playing opens because there is a level of unpredictability and for the most part I do prefer the sort of chess where you have less opening preparations more about just going to the board and playing well and I know I'll set up and I'm pretty sure almost any top level European player you would ask someone like Maxime for example or some of these other guys like Kramnik they would say they hate it just because they're so used to playing this one game a day you know where you're always prepared and you know of course here it's only one game a day unlike in the US where it used to be two but that being said the level of preparation is a bit lower but still I prefer that because I think that's a bit more of the pure style pure that's chess you know in its pure form where people go to the board and they play and they have some preparation but they're not completely prepared the way that they are in these closed events where you have lots of lots of time to prepare from Gibraltar you're going to be going to the candidates that's your next big event I have Zurich after this like sorry Zurich and then candidates is going to be completely different format and obviously that's one of the most important events of the year how would you say that a tournament an open tournament like Gibraltar would go into your journey for your preparation for this event or these few months obviously I want to do well here but I think the main thing is it's because there's such a importance being placed on this tournament you know the Candice tournament in March it's just very important to stay sharp play some chess and be ready because if you don't play before that tournament let's say I were to not play here and to not play in Zurich that basically would be something like three months where I wouldn't have played a game of actual chess sure I've been preparing but there's nothing that's quite the same as playing because it's just if you're not if you're not used to playing and you haven't played for a while and you're going to be a little bit rusty and it's going to feel a little bit strange so you were here in 2008 when you wanted in 2015 when you wanted and now you're back in 2016 what is it that makes you come back here all the time besides the winning part of it first of all as an American there's a certain cultural sense sense of understanding or comfort that I feel here because there are there are a lot of a lot of Brits and they're definitely the closest thing to Americans I would say but also it's just the location as well here in Gibraltar the weather is not always perfect but for the most part you get quite a few sunny days and the weather is more mild it's a milder climate here and compared to some other tournaments at the same time of year it's it's just much more preferable over these years when you've been in Gibraltar so many times have you seen the tournament grow or evolve over time it's just amazing so that that first year the first years that I was playing here it was just all upstairs and in like a back room on the same floor now it's just this entire hotel that that is filled with chess players so I think it's really great to see where it's gone and they do a great job and I think every year it just keeps improving and what about a big part of this tournament like you said which has also grown a lot over the years it's a social aspect of it they've got the battle of the sexes they've got all these Blitz event do you personally enjoy taking part in them I used to enjoy the social part of it more I mean especially when I won here in 2008 that was that was one of the highlights of course I've gotten a bit stronger and and into the elite level a bit more it's much more serious than it used to be on one hand but yeah just the fact they have have all these different different events for for everyone from the strong amateur players you know up to the professionals I think it just provides a great atmosphere and I think that's one of the biggest attractions for for someone who who wants to come and just just play one or two of these major tournaments every year because there there are quite a few people I know even back in New York who are coming to this event because because of the atmosphere and all these different things that are going on here so it's it's quite special absolutely thank you and all the best


Virtue is a virtual reality, VR, system designed to help stroke survivors practice everyday tasks. It uses gamified elements to make the experience more engaging and motivating, while also increasing the difficulty of tasks over time. In a pilot study, we found that patients who used Virtue had shorter hospital stays than those who did not use it. Additionally, patients with more severe cognitive impairments showed greater improvement when using Virtue compared to those with less severe impairments. This article was authored by Kaushik Chatterjee, Alistair Buchanan, Katie Cattrell, and others.


There are many different types of taxes, many different ways to tax and throughout human history governments have applied just about every general category of taxation that we know about and therefore with regards to tax, there's nothing really new under the sun at this point in time. We're not coming up with grand new tax schemes at this point but rather we're basically just tweaking adjusting tax schemes that we have seen throughout history. This course is focused on the United States income tax, the primary tax system funding the federal government. It's an income tax system, therefore the tax is being applied as we earn the money. We can compare that to another system often used in democratic republics at this point in time and that's going to be the sales or usage tax system where the tax is then being applied when a purchase is being made. So because those are kind of like the primary tax systems used in democratic republics it's useful to try to categorize the characteristics of those primary tax systems. Now in the United States we have the federal income tax system that blankets the whole country and then we have the states which have the sovereignty to choose their own tax systems. Many states mirror the federal income tax system so therefore the states will have a similar income tax system and we can apply many of the rules on the federal tax system to the state because they're going to be mirroring the federal tax system generally. However some states might deviate from that and be using more of a sales tax or usage tax type of system in order to fund the state needs. So in that case of course people would have still to pay the federal income tax and deal with an income tax system and then you've got a state tax that's going to be applied on the local level. One of the great things about the United States is the ability to have the states to be sovereign to do their own kind of taxation on a local level so that we can do some experimentation. We can we can see about how are those states doing is the taxation part of the justification or reasons for any kind of differentiations between states and those are the kind of like testing grounds. So as we think about different types of taxes we could try to categorize them in terminology that you will often hear are a flat or proportional type of tax a progressive tax and a regressive tax. So these are terms that often come up whenever you see someone that's going to change the tax law so we might be talking about something that we already have a federal income tax system and they're trying to put a new law in it to do something or the other whatever they're trying to do and you will start to hear this language such as well they're trying to flatten out the tax code or they're making the tax more progressive or less progressive or the tax code is being regressive or if you're trying to compare a sales tax or usage tax system to an income tax system people will often use these terms. Now again whenever you hear these kind of debates about taxation then you've got to be careful because people are going to try to use absolute terminology when usually things are much more complex and nuanced than to use that absolute terminology. So when you hear like a flat tax people are often thinking that you have just one tax rate so like you like you give 10 percent to charity is a gent like a gent that's kind of like a flat tax if you were to apply that rule if you're going to say I'm just going to say 10 percent is going to be coming out of your income that's a flat tax. If we have a progressive tax that means that we generally have a tiered tax system so people wealthier people generally are going to be taxed more in a progressive kind of tax system. So in the United States we're you know quite proud often people are proud of the progressive tax system because it's taxing people more on the higher income side of things and note that again there's debate already on that because the flat tax also taxes people more as people's income goes up because 10 percent of 100,000 is more than 10 percent of 10,000 but with a progressive tax now you've got a tiered structure where the rates are actually going up as the dollar amount goes up but note that these two aren't necessarily absolute differences it's not like you could say well you have a flat tax or a progressive tax we have we have a progressive tax because we have multiple tiers but you can imagine things being more or less progressive meaning do you have more tiers more layers of taxation or is the top layer of tax really high if like if you're taxing someone that makes a lot of money like a hundred percent at the top level you could say that would be more progressive or less or less or less flat so you can use this terminology to kind of not be just a static thing but basically more or less and then regressive is often a term that's going to be used to kind of downplay a tax so a politician that doesn't like whatever tax policy that's being applied is going to call the tax policy regressive which would indicate that the people on the low end side of things are going to be bearing more of the brunt of the taxes