We begin on time and we end on time. It's not another group. I was going to, considering this proud, I was going to say something totally on PC, but maybe an ethnic joke or one of these things, but I heard it will go over the web, so I will be careful. And this is one beat, and I'm really glad, you know, when the slides start. I'm really glad that nothing funny popped up from my computer, because you never know. Anyway, this, it usually begins with John Locke. The reference is, as someone correctly said yesterday, the reference is to a very famous classic libertarian movement, memoir, which usually begins with Ayn Rand, 1972, which was actually a memoir about the 60s in the libertarian movement in America. It's full of facts and fiction, as you probably know, but it was somewhat an interesting book. And it was written when the movement was pretty young. Now we're getting older, much more sophisticated, and so it's time, it's not probably time for active political participation, some people may think so, I do not. And it's time for reflection and learning, and when it comes to reflection and learning, maybe Ayn Rand is not the exact philosopher or scholar you want to turn to. Maybe we want to turn to John Locke, and actually from the intellectual point of view, it all begins with John Locke. And we'll see immediately what begins with John Locke. I would say just basically three things that are very important to us. The first one is pretty good, and the second pretty bad, and the third one is just as bad. So the first one is the account of property rights and the original acquisition of property, and also saying self-ownership as the real fact, and a peculiar view of the self as widespread, that is what comes from John Locke first, but then there's a theoretical, number two there's a theoretical, and the other unhistorical, that's an inaccurate account of the birth of the state. And the third thing is the delusion that many classical liberals, and I want to tell Hoppe that I do agree with everything he said about classical liberalism in the 1900s, the only thing of course John Locke didn't know that yet, but classical liberals of today should really know what happened after that. There's one thing that tells you everything about the failure of classical liberalism, is that Golema and Auschwitz came 250 years later, the death of John Locke, 241. So the delusion that somehow the state, though it could be considered Leviathan, brutal beast, anything you just name it, could be actually chained, chained down by what, by a constitution or, anyway, a domesticated somehow. But still, let's go back to the idea of self-ownership of John Locke. And the claim of self-ownership, you know, this single sentence from the Second Treatise of John Locke is very important. Every man has a property in his own, his own her, of course, her own person. This nobody has a right to but herself. Now this to me is the single most important sentence in the Second Treatise of Gov. And in a nutshell, the view, in Locke's political philosophy, is the view that human beings are rights-bearers by nature and because they're self-owners. And the primary moral fact of human existence is self-ownership. And this was a very solid foundation and according to me, and a long tradition, of course, before me and I believe after my death will still be there. It is that it's probably the possibly the best account of property as a source and it's also a source of morality and justice in human relations. And it was a big change. You know, most people consider gross use as the father of modern natural rights theory, but it might well be John Locke because the idea of John Locke is that natural rights do not stand directly from natural law but from the fact, the simple fact of self-ownership. And I know that some, especially British libertarians, Steve Davis, some of my good friends, do prefer Hume's account but I still think that not only Locke's is better but it's politically more viable. And also, now the problem begins when property becomes a political thing in John Locke's analysis. And property, as you know, for John Locke is everything. He says property that is his life, liberty and a state, her life, he was brought. So this broad notion of property is what men aim to protect by establishing government. It didn't happen like that, of course, you know, but that was his idea. So there are the political implications of the term property. On one side you have the idea of a natural origin of property. On the other side you have the idea that the ultimate end of government is the protection of property. So property became, in that jargon, the code word for life, liberty and a state that is natural rights and freedom. And for Locke, we can see that it's a way of just talking about the legitimacy of the political order. And we can say there's a good book from John Locke which is called On the Edge of Anarchy. And I know that Paul Gottfried doesn't like that interpretation. It was just, I believe, that Locke was quite conservative indeed. But what comes out of his theory is that society, that is government, is preferable to the state of nature only under certain conditions. As the natural state is a state to which only certain limited forms of political society will be preferable. And also in this sense classical liberalism was really shaped by Locke. Of course you know that he died about 100 years prior to the word liberalism. It was in use in Europe and it started to be used in Spain of all places. And so it's really predicated on the notion that human beings enjoy inalienable rights. Or inalienable, inalienable, doesn't, is not in John Locke, but the concept clearly is there. So the protection of rights is also the ultimate test of legitimate government actions. The state must provide a safe environment for the individual's enjoyment of her natural rights. Now it all sounds like Disneyland these days, but that's the way it was with classical liberalism. And you probably know what Gandhi said to a journalist who just visited the UK. And so he said, since according to a lot of press he was bet mouth in England, for many years he said, so what do you think about British civilization? And he said, well it would be a great idea. And so that's the same thing. What do you think about John Locke? It would be a great idea. The only thing is we know it did not exactly work like a Swiss watch. Quite the contrary. And so what is really the problem? The problem, well guess, take a wild guess where the problem is. It is the state. Now the first thing I wanted to tell you is that libertarianism, I would think it's like the Austrian school, so the understanding of the markets that brought into existence some sort of radical anarcho-capitalist or like pure libertarianism. But I think it's very important that it was the failure of classical liberalism that brought libertarianism into existence. It was the failure of classical liberalism to tame the state. It was a disastrous attempt. And so some people said John Locke tried to build a non-sovereign state. That's an oxymoron, contradiction in terms. There will never be a non-sovereign state. So, and that actually, that spectacular failure comes from a total lack of understanding of how the state works, of what the state is, and how it was shaped into a new, very flexible secular religion. And most classical liberals just never understood that. Beginning with John Locke, of course, he was in the 1600s and then going to Buchanan, Milton Friedman and Hyatt. In short, classical liberalism was actually destroyed by the very success of the state. That's one thing we have to recognize. In the beginning of the 1500s, there were probably around two or three states, France and England. Now there are 225 states all over the globe. It had tremendous success. When I hear libertarians saying that the state is not successful, it's like when the Marxists were saying that the market doesn't work. We've got to cope with that. That's a fact of life. But the thing is, the success of the state was certainly not the minimal state, not the state imagined by John Locke, but it was Leviathan, as it is, and not a watered-down version that was just wishful thinking about the state. Now there's very common in classical liberal circles. Now I'll give you just one example of how even the natural rights doctrine that seems perfect, a shield for the individual, was turned into a status tool. And classical liberalism was quite helpful for establishing the power of the state in modern times. Under the pressure of the natural law project, the state accelerated its growth, bringing about a stage reduced to two actors. And that, from the beginning, was the real project of the modern state, believed in the same two actors, the state and the free individual. You can take a wild guess about whose actor was more powerful. So modern state and the modern individual are the consequence of the same process, and they became allies in the same life-and-death struggle against old ideologies and practices, that is, against the medieval cosmos that dominated them. In practice, there was this promise of the modern state to the modern individual, I will free you from all these masters. You have like 16 or 17, you've got your corporation, you've got your church, your family, your children, even your friends will free you from everything.  But if you do have only one owner, then you do become a slave. And so Locke actually believed that natural rights were a shield for the individual, but the outcome, as I said, was very different. Natural law theory turned out to be the most sophisticated country of legal myth ever created over the long history of legal thought. Such a complex order of myths gave rise to a true legal mythology on which the state still thrived. To put it very bluntly, the state, or the man who we're talking on behalf of the state, said, you know, you're right, you're Locke. Lives. Lives improper. We're here to protect them. What else? So, the thing is, classical liberalism never understood much about the essence of the state, and I will tell you very briefly what it is. First of all, the project of the essence, this would be like the essence of the state project. First of all, the idea was to destroy the medieval universe by freeing the individual from all other authorities and relations. Second one, and probably the most important one, was the centralization of power to create one command center for all governmental operations. A single decision-making room where you could just take all the decisions which gradually imposed itself on all other centers. And then it was the creation of boundaries. Now, the boundaries are very important for the modern state. You cannot even think of a state without boundaries. Remember where the astronauts left Earth for the first time? And so the first question, Cate Canaveral, was, how does the Earth looks like? And I said, well, we don't see any borders. And so they started, we're all the human race, we're all equal. No, they were just saying a very simple thing. We're used to see the world with borders. Borders are not a natural thing, but the thing is, they're so natural to us that they became natural. Institutions tend to become very natural. Now what were you thinking? So, the idea of the borders was that you created a legal order and a political order inside. And inside them, you made good citizens through education. You could control the money. You could control the goods and everything else. And the idea was actually to bring peace. And one thing we have to cope with, or just simply to admit, is that there was a certain pacification of society with the state. In due time, it was a very long process. But right now, crime is much lower than it used to be 40 years ago, 100 years ago. You can take old statistics and that will show that. Of course, the amount of violence was exported in the outside in the other arena of the state. Libertarians have this terrible habit of just using the term state to describe political power. But the word and the object are very recent. The expression modern state in itself is pleonastic, like the Middle French, like you said yesterday. It was just a Belgian joke. So it was rather pleonastic though. Because the state is only modern. There's nothing like the state prior to modern times. And actually the word came out in the Prince for the first time and used in the modern sense at the beginning of the 16th century. And during the 16th and 17th centuries, the medieval order was destroyed by the success of this new entity that imposed radically new relations and a special one, of course, with the individual, the only other one. The state recognized only individuals, never communities, churches, nothing else. The state was there to emancipate and liberate the individuals. They're all individuals shaped by the modern state. Now, all right. This is what I would call the grand, the spectacular Libertarian illusion. Because there's a small group of people acting in the name of the state, you know, the rulers, and they definitely are a separate group with norms and a different ethical code. They created a lexicon in due time. So in order to defend their position, a great dichotomy was erected between the public sphere and the private sphere. And this is, so the grand Libertarian illusion is that you can destroy the state in your mind if you just do this. You just break this dichotomy. And so because Libertarians do entertain the bizarre idea that what is illegitimate in private law, theft, murder, should not be legitimate in public law. So this, somehow Libertarians believe that dichotomy has to be destroyed and thus the state would be seen by everyone, immediately as a predatory organization based on permanent aggression on individual rights. It might happen, but it doesn't disappear like a nightmare, you know, when you do this, the dichotomy is blah. I don't know how I could do that. Now the other thing, the other story of the Libertarian, I will go very quickly through that, of the Libertarian view of the state is the idea of plunder and property. So on one side this is, it kind of begins with Friedrich Bastiat that was written in, I guess it comes from the law in 1948 and then of course Galmoun. And the idea that men can live and satisfy his wants only by ceases labor. And this is the origin of property, but of course you can get the property of others. And this processes the origin of plunder. And this other one which is public choice of the 1850 is the idea that the unequal fiscal action of the government commuted into great classes, those who pay the taxes and those who are in fact supported by the government, taxpayers and tax consumers. This is another very well known quotation for Libertarians. Now this is another one, Oppenheimer, a Marxist, that although a radical school of the beginning of the century that somehow Libertarians fell in love with from Albert J. Nock to Rothbard. And you know this quotation very well. So economic means and political means and then of course there's Albert J. Nock and then you have this very nice quotation from Rothbard that says social power is men's power over nature, state power is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production, the draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of non-productive rulers. While social power is over nature, state power is power over men. Very nice to put and very true indeed. And then actually Rothbard says something which may not be true because he says the 20th century has been primarily an age in which state power has been catching up with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction. That's true, that's definitely true. But the creation of wealth during the 20th century it happened anyway and that's a little bit of a problem for that kind of analysis. But anyway from Bastiat to Rothbard the state appears as a machinery controlled by the ruling class to exploit and dominate society. And this is very much true but it's not the essence of the state. This theory in fact identifies state and power, state and coercion. And it sees the state operating in ancient times. The barbarians had a state, the medieval time had a state. And it's really bathed in a sociological model of the state that ignores the core of the state which is the historical dimension and the historical aspect of the state. So if we want to know something about the state history is crucial. History is the key point because the type of political order enforced today far from being the sole and inevitable product of universal reason is but the rather occasional result of a series of historical junctures. Oh alright this was easy. And also another thing that is the idea that the modern state is a secular religion and that's not part and parcel of the libertarian understanding of the state. And also if you think about many modern and contemporary political philosophers and fuzzies and importance of a civic religion from Machiavelli to Rousseau to Charles Taylor to all these kind of people and the importance is clear actually because the main unethical principles in which the state is based cannot be accepted without a strong theoretical framework defending the power and legitimacy of secular institutions. This is what exactly what the rightist and leftist state of secularism are doing. There are two different ways to build a strong religious ideological support for the state. So what's the lesson from this? If you believe that the state power is historical it is also contingent. And it is changing over time a little bit. It's got a project but it changes. I mean it responds to certain changes over time. And also you have to realize that we're not fighting against the Roman Empire. We're not fighting against the Greek Paulists. We have quarrel with our enemy, the state, the very modern modern state. So we could realize that people lived for many years under different institutions that were not a state and we could learn a lot by that from medieval times. And one time after the end of the state we know that the human race will live under different arrangements. And another thing we could learn is that there is certainly no scientific law imposing the state solution for the so-called public goods problem or the production of security. So if we realize that the state is a provisional and recent European invention and it's very important for libertarians and we might consider it a nightmare but the only way of beginning to wake up is to understand how it works and how it came to existence. And actually the key to the success of the state but I will not have time to elaborate upon that is that the state does not exist. It exists only in people's minds. We do not live in state as societies. We live in societies shaped by centuries of discussions about the state. So actually I've never seen the state but I see people always talking about the state and on behalf of the state. Also, I've never seen sovereignty. Have you seen sovereignty? I guess not. Not even a nation or anything like that or the jargon that's used by the people who talk on behalf of the state. But I know that there are hundreds of theories of sovereignty and of course Jean Baudin's is still the most important for the birth of the state. And just to show you that you can learn something even from Jean Le Carré, I will end with this quote from Le Carré. The state is a dream, a symbol of nothing at all and emptiness, a mind without a body, a game played with clouds in the sky. But states make war, don't they? And imprison people. Thank you.


Hi, this is Jerry Mikulski here to explain the learning scenarios that are up top in the Exo narratives on how to leapfrog Latin America through the lens of education document the scenarios are really meant to be Different settings under which the kinds of project proposals that we're going to suggest might live and we have liberal democracy under pressure Which means countries like the United States where we're not entirely sure it's going to be a normal democracy in another four or five years Now if you look down this list, you'll see that there's no Normal democracy setting and that's because this may be a little cynical of us But we don't think there are many democracies in the world that aren't under some substantial pressure right now Now in parentheses here, we say might result in UBI UBI is universal basic income What we mean is that the kinds of pressure that these countries are under might Cause some of them to turn to policies that include a universal basic income There might be math unemployment. There might be other other sorts of pressures that that lead in that direction We don't know this kind of a wild card, but liberal democracy under pressure is a major major category here The another category is those who are involuntarily displaced So there's many different kinds of refugees. There's refugees from climate change and as Sea levels rise. They're going to be more of those right now is probably from disastrous climate events Monsoons thunderstorms in the US. We just had some terrible tornadoes that were much more deadly than than usual There are also many economic refugees and there are many refugees escaping violence in their home countries whether it's Syria falling apart or Central America and You know mortal danger and so forth, but there are a lot of people who are displaced and because they're displaced They don't have infrastructure. They don't have a home address. They don't have a lot of things that normally One would have even if one were very poor And also in some cases they may be in camps or other sorts of temporary housing where they're not Permitted to get employment or do other kinds of things So there's a bunch of issues around those who are involuntarily displaced and we'd like to pay attention to them Because there's a huge opportunity to do something really good for them That is a different category from those disenfranchised by being you know Way out in the boonies or being extremely poor whether in out in the rural areas or in cities And so disenfranchised people may still have an address. They may have reasonable internet coverage They may have a cell phone handy or something like that, but still they're disenfranchised They don't have much of a say in what gets done around them And it's really important for us in these quests that we pay attention to those people and make sure they have a voice at the table somehow There are a few places where the state is in pretty complete control And I think external ideas that the Chinese Communist Party is in full control of China are probably a stretch But certainly China has far more control over what happens inside of its walls than do most other countries on earth There are a few other countries around where the state is really wildly in control and for those kinds of places There may still be initiatives that we can propose But there would have to be framed and probably be pretty different to work in a country where the state is in control Then finally we have a pretty different scenario Which we call ready player one and this is the name of a of a science fiction book that was made into a movie Which we recommend you watch it's basically what happens when all of life sort of falls into a video game That you have to wear augmented reality headsets to to play in or virtual reality headsets and where suddenly we are citizens of the metaverse and Here the question is This scenario could cut across all countries all policies all Polities all different sorts of things that we've been talking about here. So so this metaverse kind of applies broadly and Some of us are more and less skeptical about the fact that a lot of human activity is going to move into a place where we have to wear some kind of Facial cover that gives us immersion in this world Etc. For an attempt to try to explain kind of a better way of looking at that And this is nascent there isn't much there yet, but I bought the domain the betterverse.org and We'll be putting up there some ideas of what would be maybe a better metaverse than what Zuckerberg is proposing Facebook do For us all so these the learning scenarios were not Intending these to be cubby holes to separate out different initiatives that we come up with It's entirely likely for example that an initiative might work really well for people who are involuntarily displaced and also those who are disenfranchised It's it's easy to imagine things that would work there It may be that those involuntarily displaced need a basic infrastructure like like some kind of Wi-Fi coverage and devices even And so initiatives that go there might only apply there And then it's easy to envision that a ready player one metaverse scenarios might cut across several different kinds of scenarios Of the other scenarios as we go. So we don't intend these to be buckets to separate but rather Categories of scenarios that we see covering huge Populations in the world some of them very very distributed and broken up in different places like those who are displaced But places where we can actually go in and work on initiatives and define them better We then have use cases which we'll explain separately, but for right now. That's it for for the learning scenarios


of Rupmati Kandekar, and we thought she was going to be in what New Delhi? We were wrong. She's in New York. That's far away too. Welcome to the show, Rupmati. It's nice to see you. Aloha, Jay. And another option that you could speak with you, and very childish one in that. So, yeah, let's sort of get a handle of what you're doing these days. You were with the United Nations in New York, and you've written a book on reforming the United Nations. How does the United Nations feel about your book? It's a part of their process, isn't it? It's long overdue for the United Nations to be reformed. It's still in the structure and infrastructure of the 1945 agreement by which the countries came together. It needs to represent the dynamics of the international society, contemporary politics. So it's still not representative of that. I compliment you in writing a book about this because it should have happened before. Somebody should have written a book about it. Thank you so much. Well, so, and the last time we spoke, we spoke about the Hills. He wrote a book about in the Hills, Dragon in the Hills, I think it was, and that was about the physical fight of the Indian military and the Chinese military up on the hills above Northern India, which is actually not resolved, is it? No, it's an undefined border, which will never see agreement because it's absolutely underdeveloped. It's in adverse climatic conditions where you have snow and the Himalayan terrain. How can you guard such a post any country and two countries who have previously been involved territory? So for them, it's a more difficult situation due to the present underlying animosity in between them. So there is an underlying tension due to the non-definition of the borders. And as we discussed in our previous program, the late Pandit Jawahara Nehru left it undefined. So it was a basic tenant of state sovereignty, which he left, that he left the borders undefined. And because of that, India still continues to suffer because of the uncertainty in that area. Are you still active? You were the director of the Global Relations Forum. Is that still active? Is that part of your presence at the United Nations? It's more working with the European Union Smart Cities project that they are indulging in. So we work, we research about the cities of India, which need to bring in these Smart Cities programs sponsored by the EU. And it's a collaboration between India and EU. So Smart Cities in meaning which they've gotten renewable sources of energy, you have better infrastructure, all that will come in to India. So that's a very progressive initiative of the European Union delegation to India. Well, just touching those points with you, it's clear that you fit within the model of thinker that understands we have gone along past Thomas Friedman now. It's not that the world is flat, but the world is completely together like it or not. We are interdependent like it or not.  Because unless we act together, we will all regret it. It will affect all of us every single one. So Mr. Modi went there and he shook everybody up. Yeah. Everyone knows what he said. And the question is whether it's rhetoric or real. He said that by 2030, you would be off, or you would cut fossil fuel use in half or emissions in half. By 2070, you'd be down to net zero. Now, that's pretty ambitious. Can you talk about it? Yeah. Now, it was a shocker for the world, isn't it? For India to come and take the global stage by storm in the COP26. We didn't expect him to come and talk about this. But you see, there is a lot of practicality in what he speaks. He gave a 10-year later deadline than most countries would say. He could have easily said it's 2035. We will be net zero emissions. But he set a practical pathway that it's 2070. It's a long way across, but he set it. So the practicality of this man to lay down a plan is commendable, and India is the only country which in print and media has delivered its promise in the Paris Agreement. So we can take his word for that. And if you see, there are two initiatives that he took in for these promises that he made. He has spoken about the Indian Railway, cutting down its emissions by 60 million tons a year. And he's talking of the LED bulb, which is cutting down emissions by 40 million tons a year. So that makes 100 million tons. So that is what he's talking about, that he is doing the work. So it's not just the hollow promises that leaders bring in. He is delivering on his promises. So in India, we know that this initiative is very, he starts it in small ways. Jay, I'll tell you one thing, that he has started a campaign in India in December 3rd last year. He said that they developed one smart city in every state of India, which is either the state capital or the tourist city. So it serves as a role model for other cities to see that how they are using renewable energy. So that display and that a lot of seeing that a city functions by renewable sources is the way he functions in India. And to make a billion people follow you, you need this kind of advertisement. So he is contributing by making a billion people follow the guidelines of mitigating climate change. So you suggest that maybe this will be painful in some way to the people of India. And for example, a couple of things. One is right now India, of all the major nations in the world, and clearly India is a major nation in terms of population and productivity and all that. India uses less energy per capita than the US by far, less than China, less than all the other major nations. It's down to a pretty small amount. And so if you wanted to cut fossil fuel down on the tons of carbon down on a per capita basis, which is what he's talking about, the per capita basis is not that much relative to these other countries, they have a greater burden per capita. But the other thing I just wanted to mention is that India does not have India has some solar up in the I guess the northeast somewhere in a desert there. I forget the name of the desert is something like yes, big desert. And as a huge solar facility, it does not have a lot of other resources. And it is dependent on coal. And in fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was only a year ago that Mr. Modi was expanding coal operations. He was selling national leases to coal producers. He was drawing investment, which he was unsuccessful in actually achieving the investment he wanted. But he was drawing investment for the development of coal. Now it's one year later, and he's talking about cutting coal, am I missing something? That's right. They have all switched to the sustainable finance, isn't it? They're not going to finance any more coal projects henceforth. Now, the dependence of coal in India is mainly because the railway system in India is massive, massive. I mean, the entire population travels through rails. And we had a coal based railway system. Electricity was provided through coal. Now, India is blessed with solar energy like the entire part nation of India, it falls in the solar belt where we receive the solar energy for most part of the year. So this is what the solar alliance that he is initiated and taken leadership is in indulging in. So to cut the dependence of coal, it took a long time to change the infrastructure. We have automobiles. We don't have electric cars. Now, the companies that are coming in, the cartels that are dissolved that you cannot do this any further, they have said they did. This can happen. We need electric cars. We need cities which are dependent on renewable sources. These are guidelines which are given by the government in such a way that they have to follow it. It's not possible for them to now take a route and still depend on coal. Well, that's good on a couple of levels. One, as I mentioned that India didn't have other energy resources like oil. There's no oil in India, huge country, huge population, but no oil, which means that India is at risk to the oil markets in the world. If the oil markets go up, then all the fossil fuel cars will pay a lot more for fuel. So it's a good thing to get away from that, as it is in Hawaii. We don't have any oil here either. And we have to buy our oil from Indonesia and the like. So that's a good thing. It means that the oil, rather the electric car manufacturers, and I want to ask you about that, in India will have a boom because the law requires now that people get off fossil fuel. Somebody's going to have to produce a lot of electric cars. Now, China's trying to get into that market. Domestically, it has a lot of electric cars and trying to get into the European market. But what about India? Is China trying to get electric cars into India, or does India have its own automobile manufacturing facilities that will retool to electric cars? They've already been instructed very strictly to get into the electric vehicles sector, like the Tata Motors. You have Volkswagen. All these people are consciously making an effort to change their dependence from oil to electricity. We do have electric cars, but now you see the spending capacity of the Indian men to buy a new car and get rid of his old oil car is going to be a factor which is going to hamper this, bringing it into the normal stream. It is going to take time, but when a person goes to buy a new car, he will think now that I can buy an electric car because they're trying to make it not only oil-independent, they have to make it affordable for the Indian masses. The buying capacity, the dependence, it can't be an expensive electric car if it has to succeed in India. The only thing I mentioned earlier is the per capita use of fossil fuel in India is actually lower than in other countries, but the general rule, and see if you agree with me about this, is that if you provide cheap energy or ubiquitous cheap energy to a given community, to a given economy, it grows. Successful economies always have cheap and plentiful energy, so if India is able to pull that off, to do a lot of renewable energy, energy that's not subject to oil markets, energy that comes from solar, what have you, and provide more energy for entrepreneurs, for startups in India who are capable of starting new businesses, then productivity in India will increase dramatically along with Modi's initiative to move into renewables. Am I right? Yes, see the current capacity of India to depend on renewable energy is 145 watts. The target set for 2030 was 450 watts. In this summit in the Glasgow, he said that I will increase it to 500 watts, gigawatts, gigawatts. So you see there has gone from 145 to 500 is almost a tripling of the target. So you see what a big difference is going to make, and the new locomotives which are being manufactured, once they get, and I told you the major, major dependence of India on coal is through its railways. So once they are modernizing the railway system, you find that the entire system, entire dependence on fossil fuel reduces to a large extent. And it is possible for him to do this because they have actually been pointed the exact places where they can make a difference. Railways, LED, cars, cities which are electricity, which are being going to be powered by solar energy is free, they're having grids, they're having solar, solar energy is tapping into in such a massive way. You even have small temples or houses which are now shifting to solar panels rather than the normal electricity consumption methods. So is the expectation then that the rooftop solar will be there? The key to this initiative that is that people will be either expected to spend the money or the government will incentivize or maybe both so that the solar we're talking about going forward is on individual rooftops or will it be utility-scale solar where the utility does a big solar farm as we talked about in the desert in the northeast? It is being affordable solar energy. You'll see that this coalition for disaster, resilient infrastructure that he has initiated with the UK, Australia, with the small island nations. Modi's contribution to this, India's contribution to this is that we are providing know-how of solar technology to the small island states. So they can, so this same know-how is being implemented in houses of India. But it's a traditional society. It needs time to change and that time very rightfully he has pushed it by a decade, two decades and it's not wrong because it needs time to enlighten people. You have to now leave dependence on fossil fuel and make sure everything in your house is on renewable energy. Well, the very interesting is that India is not only dependent on coal right now and traditionally as a primary source of energy. It's that a lot of people are involved in the coal business. Mining the coal, mining, it's a big mining product and delivering the coal and involved in all the equipment that makes the coal work as providing energy and so I would suspect that it will be painful and it might even have political pushback on it when people realize they're going to be out of work and their coal companies are going to have to fold in favor of clean energy companies. There was a very interesting piece in the national public radio earlier today about this problem for people who have for generations, because coal is an old fuel. It's not only old in the ground, it's old in the production. People whose generations behind them have been involved in coal for many, many years. They're going to have to give it up. What effect do you think that's going to have both in terms of their economics, their ability to earn a living and also to their political pushback? When anything modern comes into traditional, it causes a friction, isn't it? So now when you're going to break in on the indigenous methods of livelihood, there is going to be an outcry. But when you see how they are rehabilitated into other sources of livelihood, or when you see the benefits of benefits, you cannot convince anybody it's going to give you a good air because I'm getting my energy from coal. Okay, I'm fine with it. Why do I care about later on? But to educate them to say that, okay, you give up this source of livelihood, you get into this hydroelectric car, you build the solar panels, you do these things for us, it's going to benefit you in the long term.  They have huge cartels. To get rid of the cartels, they have to first target those industries which are dependent on coal. So if you cut the demand for it, the supply automatically stays redundant, doesn't it? Yes. So that's the way he's going for it that you have to stop manufacturing fossil dependent car. You have to stop using coal for household purposes. When that reduces, automatically the demand for that will reduce. He cannot target the source. So he's targeting the demand for it. One very interesting aspect of his initiative last year was that he wanted to develop coal resources in India in order to export coal. And the investment was largely directed at mining coal and shipping it off to other places. Now, if he is interested in reducing climate change, which is what this is all about, then he's got to stop exporting coal too. So all the revenue that India might have earned in the export process will have to stop. Is this going to have a negative effect on the economy? Is this something that India can tolerate? India, the export of coal of India is not that substantial as other exports or it's not going to affect the economy as much. Now, he has to deliver on what he says, isn't it? He can't make hollow promises like he said, others make hollow promises. So he has to reduce this, stop this mitigated and he is going to do this, but this coal export is a danger to the entire world, isn't it? Coal burning anywhere, the fumes are going to go and affect somebody in another place. So it's like our pandemic, which we discussed, it's not going to affect only one person. One person is going to affect everybody. So you have to understand climate change is omnipresent. Yeah, ubiquitous. So, you know, in 2009, we started with COP 15 and it's been a long time. It's been more than 10 years, some 12 years already. And, you know, one of the things that people complain about in terms of COP is that you get political rhetoric from national leaders who are going to be out of office very soon and they can make promises which their successors may not be able to deliver. And I wonder about, you know, my feeling from this discussion is that people generally will follow Modi. They like him. They like him for this. This is a good leadership point, not only for the country, not only for India, but for the world. He has distinguished himself here in the last day or so by, you know, by making this assurance. However, how long is he going to be in office, Rootmati?  India is a democratic country of major democratic principles, you know, one of the great democracies in the history of humanity. As a matter of fact, then you have the ability for an uneventful transfer of power. The United States may have lost that, but India still has it. If you win an election, you get the job. So my question to you is, how bound will Modi's successors be to follow on the promises he made yesterday? Now, now if you see this in five days, we just left the cup. Some it is, it is going on till November 12th. You don't have a single big leader sitting over there. They all left.  So now about Modi being in power, you see it, India, whom 77% that it's existed, we did not have a comprehensive timeline set for us. There was no guideline. And this is the first that we have guidelines that you have to do this, you have to do that. The infrastructure is changing. You know, you have basic amenities reaching common man. Modi is not just being elected on a political rhetoric. He's been elected on the development work that he does. There is a lot of flaw in his ideology or whatever you want to say. But you cannot deny the fact that he works for the infrastructure and development of India that has happened going far and few in between the dynasty politics that took place before this. When you think for the country, however bad you are, however, I may not agree with you, there is a country that is going to develop because I get basic amenities. And that's what is keeping this government in power. They are developing basic railway stations, bus stations, roads, bridges. You have all this happening everywhere. So it works. It works for the common man. And, okay, you're paying more for fossil fuels, everything that works. Yeah, it hurts. But then what works is more than what hurts. That is the reason why he's. Well, there's another element too I want to explore with you and it's this. So he goes to Glasgow and he makes these statements and he is elevated immediately by global media to be a leader in climate change. I don't think there was a newspaper across the world that didn't report his initiative to get off fossil fuels net zero by 2070. I mean, this was global news and he distinguished himself in doing that for sure. And he distinguished India in doing that for sure. And then you take India, which is 1.234 billion people and everybody in India knows he did this. I mean, every newspaper, every media has made it clear to everyone in the country that he did this. And I think that not only has he distinguished himself on the global stage of climate change, but also in India. And I think I would guess that he has generated a pride, a pride among the Indians that now they are associated with this very important global ideal. And they can be they the country can be leaders and will be leaders in reaching the goal. Am I right? Do people feel that way? Do you think? For sure, for sure, Jay, because you see the Mr. Modi has got leadership qualities, isn't it? Now he has gone on a global state and he's announced two huge initiatives, which he has initiated himself. The Solar Alliance started in the Paris Agreement five years back. Now it has got more than 100 member states. He's talking of the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure. These two initiatives show that a person can come up and make a difference. And he's saying the point that I liked about his speech was when he said that the countries who do not follow these guidelines punch them. Can you do that? Can you punish anybody for climate change? But he is saying that you can do this, put pressure on the countries to follow it. He called on the North-South divide between the developed and the underdeveloping countries and said the developed countries have to contribute close to one trillion dollars. So that is a call. And when somebody takes a stand like this, such a strong stand on basis of developed countries, talking of small island nations, hobnobbing with the developed countries to build alliances, you see that there's a comprehensive persona that he portrays. That spelled success for India on the oil stage. And climate change is a place where you have a lot of color promises. And to see a leader talk of timelines, deadlines, practical ones, even if they're later than the normal thing, he spoke practical. And he gave results, what is happening. So that was the difference between leaders who just speak and leaders who act. Yes, everyone is asking that. Who are the leaders who give us rhetoric and who are the leaders that give us action? And there's a big distinction in terms of the way the world looks at those leaders. And I suggest to you that he has distinguished himself and in the process distinguished India as a place of action on the climate change stage. I will also suggest this, see if you agree with me, that as in when he completes the task or at least gets on the road, you know, it's a long way, it's a long way to completing the task, but it gets on the road and does the things that have to be done illegally. And in terms of, you know, national development, he will change India. He will be a remarkable figure in Indian history. He will change the country in terms of economics, in terms of politics, in terms of self perception and all perception of the global place that India occupies. Am I right? Do you feel that too? Absolutely. It was stunning headlines, which showed that India has a leader who can take you on the global stage and it was not just stunning in the way he portrays his ambitions. You can call it ambitions, but those ambitions have got a solid concrete practical plan which is in line. That's why you cannot, now how many leaders represented their countries, but how many stood out? How many could have the same bargaining power with developed countries and the same alliance with non-developed countries? So that kind of a two-way or two-pronged influence that he has is very rare. And if he succeeds on this climate, it's going to benefit everybody. You must be proud. Are you proud? Very proud. You know, I wanted to ask you one more question about it. We started out discussing, you know, your latest book, reforming the United Nations. And in fact, you're intimately familiar with the United Nations working there. And so, I guess, you know, the question really is, how does what happened, it didn't happen, so to speak, and still not finished, it still has a few days to go. But what is happening at COP26, how does that affect the United Nations? How will it affect the United Nations? No organization in the world should be as concerned with climate change as the United Nations. And there have been many criticisms. I'm sure you covered it in the book of the United Nations and its ability, its collective will to do something about climate change. Will COP26 affect that? COP26 becomes a milestone for the United Nations as have all the main summits. You know, it provides just a guideline. But you see the alliances and the bilaterals that take place on the backdrop of the UN are the ones which actually make a difference. Now, this solar alliance was formed in the United Nations General Assembly, sidelines with India and the Caribbean, Karikom and the Pacific nations. It didn't happen on the UN platform. So, what the UN is doing is just providing a platform, only sole intergovernmental comprehensive platform for the countries to come and talk. But the effectiveness of policies takes place in the bilaterals and multilaterals that take place on the sidelines of the UN. So, that is where, now, even you said these, because we do not have a mechanism for implementation in the UN. They just say it, but there are no punishments or no, you cannot be penalized for not conforming to the guidelines. That becomes a picking point for the UN. You just say it, but you don't see that it is done. You know, that is the point, that is the drawback of the setback for the UN. Yeah, it's always been and is subject to these international politics involving strategical moves like by Russia and China. So, you know, they sort of pull the rug out from under a legitimate, well-intentioned initiative, and regrettable, but maybe between COVID and climate change and the follow-up on COP26, the United Nations will be able to step up a little more. I'm hoping that. I know you're hoping that. So, we have to get back together again. Rupmati, we have to discuss this going forward. This is something to watch. It is an existential threat. Humanity is at risk, and you and me, we can talk about that. Maybe we can save the world, Rupmati. So, what message would you leave with our viewers? It's like the same thing that we said for the other discussions that we always have comprehensive issues, which are so comprehensive. They are global, but affect you on a personal level. So, climate change is going to, it's not a threat that will affect future generations and our children and this and that. It's existential. It is about now. It is how much, you know, you can see the adverse effects of climate in every place that we are seeing today. So, we have to mitigate and we have to do our little part in trying to depend now on renewable sources of energy. Do that bit to work. Let's hope. Let's hope. We are all together now, like it or not. Thank you so much, Rupmati. Rupmati Kandagar out of New York today. We so enjoy talking with you and we hope to do it again soon. Always a pleasure to. Aloha and namaste.


Welcome to this Global Symposium for Regulators 2017. On behalf of ITU and all the delegates present here today, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the government and the people of the Bahamas for hosting this 17th edition of the Global Symposium for Regulators. Yes, 2017. Mr. Prime Minister, I had the opportunity to visit your beautiful country in April 2016 and was impressed like today by the warm and loud welcome I received. You know, this kind of music by this group, I don't know whether you have noted something also remarkable, not only play beautiful music, dance, not only they are young, but I also found that they are gender balanced. There are a lot of young girls inside. And another thing for the foreign visitors, let me tell you, I learned one culture I learned last year. When I started my dressing, good afternoon, I immediately received a gratifying feedback from the audience. Last year because of the full audience, look at the audience, so I get a very strong good afternoon back. But today, many of you are not national delegates, so that I do not hear that strong voice. But anyway, let me tell you, this is something I enjoyed very much last year. I learned a lot. So ladies and gentlemen, today, more people, yes, sorry, allow me also take this opportunity to offer our congratulations to the people of the Bahamas on the 44th anniversary of your independence that took place just two days ago. So ladies and gentlemen, today, more people are connected. New technologies like a broadband and a mobile are being deployed. Information and communication technologies, ICTs, are transforming people's lives around the world. We live in a world of digital opportunities. This group ICT success story is possible because of a massive investment in infrastructure and boosted consumers' demand. We note that fixed broadband adoption is rising. In early 2016, three out of four fixed broadband subscriptions had advertised speeds of 10 meg per second and above in developed countries, compared with two out of four in developing countries. National fiber backbones have been transformed from straight lines into a proliferation of connections and loops. As for mobile broadband, it is booming and promises to reach more people more rapidly than any other technology in history. In 2017, it's estimated that mobile will be the access channel for three quarters of all internet use, but there's more to this success story. Today, half of world's population is still offline, unable to benefit from the opportunities that the digital economy has to offer. The unconnected often live in poor areas or in areas that are difficult to reach. In order to bring them online, we will have to redouble our efforts, all of us together. And that is why creating an attractive environment for investment in ICT and partnerships for development must be one of our top priorities. ITU members of the Caribbean regions have a lot to contribute. I noted that in this region, you are doing quite good. Mobile tele-density levels are quite high and there are reports of an increasing level of connectivity fiber to the home and new innovations, especially by youth in clean tech, e-security, mHealth and other apps development. This is great news for the entire region. Just single delegates, as we look ahead, our work on 5G, big data, the Internet of Things, and cloud computing to name a few will be absolutely essential. All those endeavors are already on the agenda. The spectacular growth of cloud computing, social media, the widespread use of apps and the ongoing march of mobile are rapidly coming together, creating not only new technologies, but also new business models. These are indeed moving fast and breaking things. As explained in the newly released ITU Global ICT regulatory outlook report, ICT is both an enabler and a challenge to business as usual. The challenge comes with opportunities. Since ICTs affect all sectors from finance to utilities, e-commerce, e-health, e-money, and many more electronic services are reaching more and more people around the world. Technological growth has expanded the capacity of ICT youth across sectors, and it's being recognized and harnessed by businesses, policymakers, and regulators. Other sectors rely on us for providing secure and sustainable broadband connectivity. It's important that the interaction of the ICT sector for stimulating growth in the digital economy alongside other sectors be understood, and that is a particular truth in developing countries. Ladies and gentlemen, we often hear that authorities are lacking behind industries and technologies that they need to catch up with the industry and address new frontier technologies like artificial intelligence. ITU is conscientious of its reliability and capabilities to be a partner in innovation and development, and our work, particularly in the development sector, aims to reach that goal and build the basis for the next frontiers. Last month in June, ITU and a private sector partner in cooperation with 20 United Nations agencies organized the AIF for Good Global Summit in Geneva. During this successful event, which drew attention from around the world, industry and academia members expressed their appreciation to ITU and the UN system as a whole for addressing those important issues at this so-called early stage, calling for us to create a good environment that is supportive of innovation and technology development. They called for us, including called for developing countries. Innovations and technology development were an important part of the conversation at the WISIS Forum 2017, which was here in Geneva exactly a month ago. Most of your regulatory agency were represented. I know many of you were here and were there as well. Thank you for your contributing to the success of this WISIS Forum 2017. Innovation and technology development are also at the heart of ITU Telecom World 2017 in Busan, Republic of Korea, from 25th to 28th September. You are all invited to join us. ITU Telecom has been reformed with a new focus on supporting SMEs, which are important drivers of innovation and creating jobs. Many countries will bring their SMEs to Busan and I wanted to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my friends here from various regulatory agencies of our member states for making this possible, showing their support not only to their dynamic SMEs, national SMEs, but also to support ITU's initiative to create a global platform for SMEs. This innovation and technology issues will be further addressed at our WTDC, which will be held in Buenos Aires from 9th to 10th October, as just advice to you by my colleague, Director Mr. Mr. Bragimassano. So I also like to invite you to join us at WTDC 2017. Ladies and gentlemen, we are living in a world of digital opportunities. GSR 2017 is an important opportunity for regulators, policymakers, industrial leaders, and other key ICT stakeholders to unleash the potential of collaboration to create an attractive environment for innovation and investment. The interactive discussions that will take place over the next three days will create opportunities for consumers and the business in an increasingly complex and dynamic ICT ecosystem. I wish you all a very successful and productive GSR 2017, and also enjoy the street festival our host will invite us tomorrow. Thank you for your attention.


I just want to know one thing, when you feel really hurt by something or someone or situation, people or whatever, how correct or incorrect is it to move away despite making one attempt to try and clarify things? When was the last time somebody stabbed you with a knife? They never did? Okay, when was the last time somebody poked you with a pin at least? No? They ignored you. This is not nice. So when you talk about causing pain, someone else can cause physical pain to you. They can enjoy you. That's different. Mentally, all pain is caused by you and nobody else but you. Somebody is doing what they like to do and you get hurt. No, but should we choose to walk away from it? Will come. First of all, why are you hurt? That's all I'm asking.  There is no such perfect human being who will not hurt you. Everybody will hurt you. If you're waiting for that perfect on the White Horse night, there is no such man. Believe me. You can believe me. See, I've been around for long and there is no such man or woman that who is perfect. I want you to look back and see. Today you're in Gujarat. So here there's a big celebration about Krishna. I'm saying even such a man. Not okay for the people who are there. So there is no perfect human being anywhere. So they do not hurt you. They're doing what they know best. You're getting hurt, isn't it? Unless they're poking you with something, they're poking you with a dagger, you must move away. You shouldn't be there. But they're saying something. Why are they saying what they're saying? That is the best they know. Yes or no? You don't like to be in an atmosphere, not because it is causing pain to you, because certain atmospheres will not allow you to be effective. I want to do something. In a certain atmosphere, it'll not work. So I don't want to waste my energies there, so I'll move elsewhere. But not because they're going to hurt me. If they're going to shoot at you, you must move away. Otherwise why?


If you followed our last video you should be a champ at riding backwards now's the time to spice it up today You're gonna learn how to 180 Hey, everybody today, we're gonna learn how to transition from riding backwards to forwards This pivot is an important move to start linking tricks together. I'm here with trick writer co who's gonna demonstrate So I'm how to do it First you need to be riding backwards either by starting in a track stand or pushing off the wall Either way you need momentum when you are performing this move once you are riding backwards use your backwards momentum and pull up on The front wheel and lift it off the ground Practice this a few times to get it right once you got the hang of that We're gonna add the transition movement at the same time that you are pulling up on the front wheel Twist your shoulders in your head while stopping the backwards pedaling motion to go into a forward ride This will take some practice to get timing correct If you're having trouble bringing the bike around you might be going too slow or not twisting hard enough Also, remember to pull up and twist your body at the same time, and that's how you transition from riding backwards to forward Thanks, George if there's any tricks that you want to learn let us know by hitting us up on Twitter at Purfix TV Until next time I'll see you in the streets


My name is Henry Simons. I'm the Assistant City Manager of Operations here for the City of Columbia, and the City of Columbia, Wrist and School District 1, and the Martin Luther King Junior Memorial Foundation have kicked off the annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Honor to Dream Food Drive, benefiting the Harvest Hope Food Bank. The food drive is held each year to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy of community service. Some requested items include canned fruit and vegetables, dry goods, and canned meat. The food drive ends December 6th, so make sure to drop off your donations by then at one of the numerous locations set up around the city. For a full list of locations and more information, visit the Parks and Recreation website at columbiasc.net slash parkstatsrecreation or contact their office via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.


Today we are hiking a really beautiful trail again. Right at the border of France and Switzerland, we are starting a trail that starts a little bit above Wallerchen and finishes in Argentaire. This trail runs through a gorgeous valley surrounded by one of the highest mountains in Europe.


another session on congruent triangles so in the last session we have seen what is meant by congruent triangles now we are going to take up the criteria one by one as to what is required for two triangles to be congruent so the criteria if I have to mention let us let me mention the criteria for congruence so one was corresponding corresponding corresponding angles corresponding angles must be equal correct that was point number one must be equal so this is for this holds for any geometric figure not necessarily for triangles right any linear geometric figure and second point was corresponding corresponding corresponding sides are equal sides are equal okay now in this case if you see you will be able to prove that two triangles are congruent let me draw a triangle first so here is what I am going to draw up triangle so triangle ABC okay so this triangle ABC will be congruent too so let me just select all copy and paste right so here is the triangle right so we can prove that what can we prove we can say that triangle ABC ABC is congruent to the symbol for congruence triangle a1 b1 c1 by SAS criteria why so AB is given to be equal to AB is equal to a1 b1 okay secondly let's say BAC angle BAC is equal to angle B1 a1 c1 let's say these conditions are given and what else angle AC or sorry side AC not angle so I have to write side AC is equal to a1 c1 okay so these are the three the three conditions given now we have to prove that so if you see we have to just prove that this is sufficient enough so these conditions are sufficient conditions so these conditions are sufficient that's what they are saying so if these three are met that means the other three sides and angles will also be equal how do we know that so clearly since AB is equal to a1 b1 so if you try and superimpose AB on a1 b1 or a1 b1 on AB it will fit in and since angle a is also equal to angle a1 so this will also fit in okay so and so a1 c1 is also again with that logic a1 c1 will also be fitting in correct so hence there will be a perfect superimposition right so a1 b1 will fit on AB because same length and same point right and angle a is equal to a1 so the two arms of angle a and a1 must coincide so they are coinciding and the third point is AC is given equal to a1 c1 and a1 if coincides with a then automatically since AC is equal to a1 c1 the other end point of these two line segments that is c1 and c will be coincident so that means a1 is coinciding on a b1 is coinciding on b and c1 is coinciding on c so the three vertices are coincident on each other the moment that happens the two triangles become congruent isn't it so hence we can say that this is called side angle side criteria what does it mean if if one side or not two sides so let me write this if two sides two sides and the included angle included now this is very important included angle two sides and included angle of a triangle triangle r equal to r equal to r equal to the corresponding sides two words are included and corresponding very important corresponding corresponding sides and included angle sorry the word is included angle included angle right so if two sides of the and two sides and the included angle of a triangle are equal to the corresponding sides and included angle of another triangle of another triangle the triangles are equal the triangles are congruent triangles are congruent but so this is the first criteria guys sas criteria this criteria is called sas you have to mention this criteria whenever we are going to prove two congruence using these this criteria sas criteria so once again i will lay emphasis on the included part of it see what is meant by included part so included angle so a and a1 a is included angle of ab and ac but b is not included angle of ab and ac b is included angle of ab and bc correct so this sas criteria means that the side then the included angle and the another arm so basically you are just trying to prove one angle is equal to another angle with both the arms also being equal then the two triangles are congruent because they will be super imposing each and super posing each other right so you understood so a is equal to a1 and the arms which are making that angle a so ab and ac are the sides of which the included angle is a so please be very very careful that if you are two sides and let's say angle b was given to be equal then the triangles need not be congruent guys right what i'm saying is if this small c is equal to c1 this b is equal to b1 and let's say this b is equal to b1 right which is not the included angle then the two triangles need not be congruent so it's very very important to understand that this criteria is only for included angle right when that happens then the other parts of the triangle automatically become become equal right so hence two sides and included angle two sides and included angle are equal then the two triangles are congruent


In the last segment we looked at how to translate manual algorithms into programs. We ran one program and in this segment we are going to see how we might recover if you make some mistake in writing the program. So here is an example. So this is the same program from last time except that these two statements. So this statement and this statement their order has been exchanged. So in the real program this statement came later and this statement came earlier. So we have exchanged it, exchanged the order. So first of all this is a bad program. It will not give the correct answer and let us see that. So here is the program in which the value of the statements has been exchanged. So I have called it ebuggy.cpp. So let us compile that program. So it compiles fine. So now let us run it. So let us try our test case 0. So this seems to run fine. Let us try our test case 1. Oh this also seems to run fine. So maybe well let us see. Let us try our test case 2. So here there is a mistake. We were expecting a value 2.5 but we have got the value 3. So how do you recover? Well there are 3 possible courses of action that you can take and you really should learn all 3 because once in a while one will be more useful than the other. Sort of the simplest thing to do is to put print statements to see whether not just the final value but whether the intermediate values are correct. What I mean by that is you put print statements. The program will print out the intermediate values and then you go over the intermediate values and you check are these the values that I was expecting or is something wrong. Another possibility is not to put print statements but do the same thing yourself. So you pretend that you are the computer, you walk over the program and on the side keep writing what values different variables are and at the same time keep on reasoning are these the values you expect to see and if not then you have found a mistake. The last way is to do the same thing but in a symbolic manner. So rather than saying variable capital T has the value 1 we are going to say what if the variable capital T has the value 1 over i factorial and we are going to symbolically try and reason out and see if everything is correct. So what do I mean then I say I put print statements. Well this last this red line. So we should remember that look at it is usually convenient to put print statements at the beginning of the loop. So that is because our plan has also been made for the beginning of the loop. So we can look at the values that get printed and we can look at the plan and we can see whether everything is fine. So our plan contains variables capital I, T and S so those are the variables that we are going to print. So let us again see this in action. So I have put in the statements in a program called edbug. So this here is the line where the print statements are there. So let us now compile and execute this, compiled and let us say run. We know that this program makes a mistake for the value 2. So let us see what happens over there. So if we print 2 we are going to see the intermediate values during the iterations. So here are the intermediate values. So the first time around when I was 1, T was 1, S was 1. This is as we expect. This is the very first iteration and in fact at this point the variables just have the values that we gave to them. In the next iteration when capital I is 2 we expect the term to be the previous term that got added and that was 1 over 1 factorial. So in fact it is 1. So this is perfectly good. Then we expect capital S the sum at the beginning of the second iteration to have the value 1 over 0 factorial plus terms until we get the term 1 over 2 minus 1 factorial or 1 over 1 factorial. So there are just 2 terms 1 over 0 factorial and 1 over 1 factorial. So the value is going to be 2 which is also what we have expected. So this means that there really was no error as far as the values were concerned in our variables until the beginning of iteration 2. So let us just go back to the program. So we have discovered that this value is printed correctly and the values printed over here are correct and therefore something must be wrong over here in this statement because until now S was correct at this point S was wrong so something is wrong over here. So if this statement is wrong then we are pretty close to the mistake and then all that we need to check is are we adding the right thing over here. So here we are adding 1 whereas we expect to add 1 over 2 factorial to this not 1 over 1 factorial and therefore we can see that this is definitely wrong and now we can realize that look this statement should come before this and then everything will be fine. So we discovered what the error was and by the way errors are called bugs in computer parallel sometimes and so we have figured out what the bug is and this is also saying that we have debugged the program. Another way of debugging the program is through manual program tracing. So here is our same program and now we are going to pretend that we are a computer and we are going to execute it, execute the program and keep track of what values the different variables have. So to facilitate this it is often recommended that you make a table. So you have a column for every variable. So let us not keep a column for N because N is going to be fixed once and for all and it is not going to change. So let us keep a column for I, let us keep a column for T, let us keep a column for S. So when we execute the first statement which is this here, then these variables get the value 1, 1, 1. Then when we go to repeat N, so let us say iteration 1 what happens during that iteration 1. So first we are going to change S to S plus T. So as a result we are going to get the value 2 over here. After that we are going to do T equals T upon I. So T equals T upon I, so we will get the value 1 over here. And then we will have I equal to I plus 1, so we will get the value 2 over here. Then we are going to go to iteration 2. So in this way we continue and we will realize that at some point the values that we have over here are different from the values that we expect. So again at that point we proceed in the way we did in the print statement case. So once we do that we will again figure out that oh here is the mistake and then we can remove it. Now many experienced programmers prefer doing this manually rather than putting print statements because somehow it feels that as you do this you are getting to know your program better and sometimes the print statements sort of are too confusing, there are too many things that happen at once and yeah so it really depends on your temperament but you should definitely consider this. Then the last and by no means the least important method is symbolic tracing. So again it is the same program and we are now the question that we are going to ask is let us assume that things have worked out until this point. Well we can check whether they have worked out at the first iteration. So how do we check that? We look at I equals 1, T equals 1, S equals 1. So that in fact has worked out according to plan because I, T and S have exactly the values recommended over here. Now we are going to check symbolically whether we did the right thing that is whether our updates are in fact doing what we want them to do. So what is this update doing? It is taking the old value of S and adding it to the value T. So we are going to, we are assuming that the T value is this, the S value is this. So now if we add this value to this value what happens, oh something wrong. The last term over here was 1 over I minus 1 factorial and we are adding 1 over I minus 1 factorial to it where we, when we should have added 1 over I factorial. So clearly we have made a mistake and again if you think a little you will realize that oh we really should have divided first so this statement should come first. So let me conclude. So first I want to say that you must write down specifications clearly. In this particular program things were quite simple but if you take a real life problem the experience is that in many programming projects there are delays and people go, people write wrong code because they did not understand what was required of them. They did not understand what the specification was. So please take the time to make sure that you are understanding clearly what is expected of you. Then you should construct test cases because first of all they are useful when the program is ready but because they also are an indication that you are actually understanding what is expected of you. For much of this course it will be sufficient for you to write a program that mimics what you do by hand or what you do manually. For this you have to be quite conscious, you have to be very, very intimately knowing what exactly you do manually. So think about what you do and think about what structure it has. So for example you may ask when I am doing solving this problem I am doing these phases which look very similar. So you might ask how many phases because that is going to tell you that oh I should use a repeat loop and it should have so many iterations. You should also state in general terms what each phrase accomplishes. So in terms of that phrase number so you should say something like phase number. In phase I I am going to take the term calculated in phase I minus 1 and whatever. So it had better be general because generality is what helps you write programs. And yeah so as I said phases become iterations of the repeat statement and you can, you should note that you may want to number the phases so you can number them conveniently. In our case we started with fun but there may be other situations where you may want to start with 0. And you should determine what you need at the end of the phase or at the beginning of the phase. So the end and beginning are really very similar because the end of phase I is the beginning of phase I plus 1. So in any case you need to know what it is that you need to remember at that point and those the things that you need to remember will need variables. So the structure that we had in this program is actually very common. So what is that structure? You have a set of variables and you want them to assume specific values at the beginning of iteration I where I is anything, I could be anything. For all possible values of I you know what values they need to take. So this knowledge should be put in the code in form of comments. And this knowledge what is desired, what values are desired is often called the invariant for the loop. So for all loop iterations this statement has to be true and therefore it is called an invariant. You can ensure that the invariant is true for the first iteration by initializing variables correctly before you enter the loop. Now for the subsequent iterations you can assume that the invariant is correct at the beginning and then you should change the values of the variable so that it becomes correct at the end. So that is what the code in each iteration is supposed to be doing. And to get this right it is good to be careful, it is good to ask look I want the value of this variable to be divided by this variable. Now it could be the value at the beginning, the value at the end, which value am I supposed to use. So be very careful about that and then it will make sure that your statements, your updates will happen in the right order. If you write a program and it does not work correctly you should not give up hope, you can make sure that it runs, you can attempt to remove the bug, the error. So for this you can put print statements to check if the variables have the values you expect in each iteration. You can trace or manually execute your code or you can symbolically execute your code. Now I am going to leave you with an exercise and this is again the same series that you are supposed to calculate except the plan or the invariant given to you is slightly different over here. So the invariant is stated in those comments and you are required to complete the initialization and the loop steps and make the program work correctly. So this is the end of this lecture sequence and I will strongly urge you to try the other exercises given at the end of chapter 4 which is the reading for this lecture sequence. Thank you.