Skoliko? In this lesson we are gonna talk about it, how to copy one list to another. You should know that you must avoid assignment operator for making new copies of lists because reference to the list is shared among them Are on the other words, every new list is pointing to the same list in memory if you try to use assignment operator. To solve this problem, lists have copy method, which does the right thing. Let's see how copy method works. First we want to make, for example, my list with elements 1, 2 and 3. Then we want to make a new copy of my list and save it, for example, to my list 1 list. So we'll say my list 1 equals my list and we'll use copy method without arguments to make a new copy of my list to my list 1. Now my list 1 has all the elements like my list, but those two lists are completely separated. Both have same elements, but they are completely separated. And if you won't work with one list, that work will not affect second list. If you change in any way this list in my list 1, it will not affect at any point your old my list list and their elements. That's all in this lesson. Thanks for watching. Please like, share and subscribe. Happy coding.


The notion of asking teachers to become instructional designers and move beyond becoming or serving just as an instructional planner to say, we're going to cover these pages in the textbook today, I think is an important aspect as we think about 21st century learning because what it provides is the teacher's insight about the group of students that she or he is working with and thinking about what supports need to be provided for them to be successful. What we have kind of in the 20th century as a function of our technology is I would write my lesson plan and kind of teach to the middle of the class because we have one textbook, there's only so many resources and yet really what we're thinking about now as we think about diverse learners, if I got kids that aren't reading a grade level, how do I get texts that simplify, how do I build in the background knowledge that they're missing and so really these are questions about instructional design as opposed to just implementing a textbook, it's really about how do I gather the resources to make sure students learn. One way that the teachers are making a difference in classrooms today is they're using differentiated instruction and what that allows them to do is to think about different needs and to give students choice. One of the things we know about learning is that learning occurs best when there's appropriate challenge, not too hard, not too easy, but kind of right in the middle. But when I look at a student, I can't necessarily tell what's the right challenge level, that's where we need the student to engage. Differentiated instruction is a kind of a powerful construct to help teachers plan to think about how do I engage these diverse learners at the multiple levels.


Okay, this is Stefan Kinsella. I'm here with Mr. Williamson Evers, who I've never met in person. And he has graciously agreed to discuss with me a topic that I've been interested in a number of years, the title transfer theory of contract. And Mr. Evers, how are you doing? I'm fine. Thank you. So I'm Bill Evers, Williamson M. Evers. I'm a Stanford PhD in political science. And I currently am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. I was a friend of Murray Rothbard for many years and discussed political theory and philosophy of law questions with him, including questions about the law of contracts. So I think that's what we're going to discuss today. Absolutely. And I'll just observe that I've been a fan of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, of course, since its inception. And I noticed that I think your article was the very first article ever published in the JLS. That's right. It was the lead article in volume one number one. Yes, and you've had several others. Yes. And I was also the managing editor for a while. And I think your article came out in 1977 and I'm a lawyer. And so I've written on this topic and I've been interested in it since I've been studying Rothbard and Libertarian theory. And this theory has been fascinating me for a long time. My impression and I'd like to get your impression is that it's been, it's got a lot of potential. It could have more development and it's underappreciated and I think it's revolutionary to be honest and legal and Libertarian theory. Just in tracing the genesis of the idea, it appears to me that around 1974, I think your article came out in 77. Around 74 Rothbard had some sketchy thoughts on this in one of his earlier articles. So my guess has been for a while that you and Rothbard were discussing this, and you wrote it up into a longer piece. And then Rothbard drew on that in his Ethics of Liberty chapter which relies heavily upon your 1977 article. Is that basically what happened? Do I have that right? I think that's basically right. So this was a long time ago. So you and I are talking in 2014. Correct. I specialize in kindergarten through high school education policy these days. And I'm not writing in this area anymore. I'm not saying I would never write in it anymore, but I haven't for many years. I wrote in addition to this article toward a reformulation of a law of contracts. I also wrote on social contract theory and political thought. And so that's a related area. But anyway, I wanted to add your question really is about the genesis of this and Corey Rothbard and I used to talk on the telephone late at night. He was kind of a night person and we would talk quite long times. You know, maybe even hours sometimes. One of the early days when I knew him, he didn't really like to travel very much, but he loved to talk on the telephone and have people in this apartment. He enjoyed his apartment in New York City. But anyway, we used to talk about things and I was a graduate student in political science at Stanford. And I had to write papers on various topics. And so I tried to utilize the obligation to write the serious papers to also explore things that I thought were underdeveloped in political philosophy of classical liberalism. And so I did, and this is really not something I'm completely certain of, but I believe that I discussed it with Marie Rothbard that, you know, certain insights that I found in the very fragmentary way, a very scattered way and different writings of his and that he encouraged me to develop these further. And so Stanford has a great law school with a great library and I just dug in and sort of the first thing I realized was that utilitarian ideas about expectations have had a huge impact on the way the law of contracts was discussed. You know, like a lot of things, and this is something that you as reflected in your own writing, there are different ways that sort of different ways of approaching the topic that kind of end up with a similar result. Just because this focus on expectations was there didn't mean that the law of contracts was, you know, completely wrong headed or hopelessly wrong or something like that. But it meant that it wasn't thought about in a way that was compatible with a natural rights, private property oriented classical liberalism. So I looked around and I found various authors who, you know, I read things on all the different sides of this, and I found out what are the issues, what are the controversies, what are the controversies that are interesting to libertarianism. And I tried to find out how had previous people thought about it and how to press those thoughts on further and, you know, try to systematically go through the issues. And that's what I did in this article and Professor Rothbard thought it was a pretty important article. I use it as a lead, the lead piece in the new journal. And I agree with that and when I came across it and Rothbard's restatement of it and ethics of liberty, it sort of blew my mind as a lawyer. As you saw from my piece, I'm from the civil law tradition in Louisiana and there they distinguish contractual or conventional obligations as either to do or to give. Okay, so that's the conventional way of the typical way of looking at it. And from what I realized from looking at your and Rothbard's work is that pretty much every conventional legal system and contractual system can be boiled down to really an obligation to give, which is really not an obligation to give it's just a transfer of ownership of property. Okay, so to me, this whole approach rests upon an essential insight that all rights are property rights and that all property rights are rights and scarce resources and the right of ownership is the right to control it. And one of the aspects of that is the right to convey the title to someone else and that's really what contracts are. I mean, is that the basic approach that you would agree with. Yes, but I do think we have to be careful about include the right to convey because I think that the natural rights tradition in classical liberalism says that you can't sell yourself. Correct. Now you could, let's say you found a guru or a religious figure, or you joined a monastery where there was absolute rule by the head of the monastery. You could dedicate yourself in a sense you could, you know, you could make yourself survive, but you couldn't hold you to it, they couldn't enforce the contract it couldn't hold you captive as a slave legitimately in terms of natural rights, libertarian philosophy. So, and, you know, the whole superstructure of libertarian philosophy of law is built on dealing with the situation of free human beings in the society with scarce resources as you said.   Right. And which is why my, I hope your listeners haven't got lost in the metaphor. No, my listeners love this kind of stuff so that's that's fine. My, my feeble attempt to build on your work and Rothbard's was in my article that one reason I had, I thought I had to deal with the in the whole inalienability issue was because of exactly what you're talking about. I don't know if you agree with all of that approach, but it seems to me that we have to treat property rights in one's body, which is euphemistically or metaphorically called self ownership sometimes. We have to treat that differently than the acquisition of property rights and scarce resources that are previously. I agree with that. I agree with that. So I did have some differences with your paper, but I thought it was a serious paper and I'm not, you know, so sectarian as to condemn you to outer darkness or something over the differences because I think it's a very critical that you wrote. I, you know, I have some thoughts on different aspects of it, which I'd be glad to make the focus of the rest of our discussion. But, you know, I just want to mention to listeners and to this that, again, this is not the area in which I'm doing research and writing today, but you know that I can recall what I think and thought about it. So, as I went through it, I thought, you know, you know, first of all, you're kind of recapitulating what Professor Rothbard and I but Murray Rothbard and I had to say but you're also partly talking about your foundational views of what justifies the libertarian philosophy and you're, I guess, attracted to the argumentation ideas of Hans Hoppe. Am I correct in that? It is, but I don't think these ideas rely upon that but. Right, I don't think they do either. And so I would want to state that I myself. You know, I am more of a Aristotelian Tomas in the way that Professor Rothbard like to modify that in the way that Doug Rasmussen and Denial set this forward. I think that, you know, that's pretty good. Similarly, Henry Beach is another man that I think highly of. And I, but I don't oppose argumentation idea, which has a kind of a more Kantian cast to it. It was, I think, developed very well by James, Father Sadowski, James Sadowski, and Professor Rothbard also liked it. And I view that as not in conflict with an Aristotelian Thomas justification of property rights and of human liberty, individual liberty. And so we're not antagonistic, but I just thought I could say that I think they're compatible that I think that I say I, I think I find one is more of a thin justification and the other is more of a thick one and I'm just more comfortable with it. But I also think in arguing with other people, it's good to have at your disposal a thin one because it's easier to talk to people. This is kind of an what what political philosophers call an imminent critique because you're saying to somebody, well, if you, you know, think that you can do this.  And so, so that's sort of in caricatured form that argumentation argument. And, you know, I think at a minimum, it ought to make people pause. So I think it's good, but I just think I want to kind of go deeper. Now, I think you make a good point that Professor Rothbard and I seem very like standoffish about the word or term promises and we're very, you know, you use like the phrase that we're fixated on it. That was probably too harsh. We're kind of writing it. We're kind of writing in reaction. I understand to legal theorists that made a lot out of mere promises. Exactly. And I think you're, you're quite right in saying that if the substantive effect and intent of a promise is to convey title, then it's, you know, quite good contract and it would be so under libertarian thinking. Right. And that is your point and I agree with it. But I mean, I also think and you would, you're kind of in our conversation here acknowledging that you're understanding that we were reacting against this kind of cavalier breezy use of promises. Of course, with quite a substantive effect in the people that we were arguing against. Of course, and, and I'm happy to let you talk about any of this, but my point was not to get you to comment on my paper, my paper just an indication of my interest in this topic and I'm really interested in a few things about I don't know if you've paid attention to or if you recall some of these, the little minutiae. I don't know. I don't know where we. I'm sorry. I'm sorry about that. I don't know what happened. We got cut off, but I'll fix it. Okay, so what was I saying when we stopped here. Well, I was, I'm trying to remember sorry I was distracted myself but what I was saying was, I just wanted to ask you a couple of things that have stood out to me in this debate first I wanted to get your impression. Well, did you did you hear me saying that. We talked about the promises thing. Yes, yes. Okay, so then I wanted to go. And I before I did it I wanted to say that I appreciate once again I appreciate you writing the article I think it's a serious article and just because we have differences doesn't mean I'm condemning you. Well, I don't. Anyway, the first thing I wanted to discuss was this issue about the existence of something that might be owed in the future. Exactly. And I actually did want to turn to that I wanted to. So I wanted you to kind of state your view, and then I will react to it. So that's and that's fine and let me be clear this, I wanted to get your views I really wasn't trying to seek your commentary article I'm happy to, if you want to use that framework and that's fine. But I was trying to talk to you about what you've written. And I wanted to get your insight about the process and what your thoughts are on the development of this theory and how much is left to be developed and believe me I'm not a critic I'm a huge fan of your work. I think there's something to be developed. So I wasn't trying to be critical of the article. There's a few. There's a few things. I think Randy Randy Barnett, although he's, you know, this has not been the major focus of his writings, he has made additional contributions on it. I agree. And I think I think that, you know, I think that's another person who has written on this but in a sense, you're, you're right that hasn't been a lot written on it. I wonder, there's also a professor at Stanford named Marcus Cole, who's an expert on bankruptcy. And I have not explored that much of his writings on this and I don't know how much he draws on this. He's certainly familiar with Randy Barnett. I don't know. He knows about my writings on the subject, but anyway, I'd be happy to look into it. I mean, obviously bankruptcy is a strongly related to contract. And it's related to this issue that we're talking about now, which is whether someone who is called upon to perform or transfer something in the future, whether that if that thing is not in existence, what is the status of the contract. I mean, my, my view is that, you know, if you committed to something that's a legitimate contract, even if you don't have it, let's say, you know, you're supposed to have a certain amount of money to give somebody in the future and you don't have it. That doesn't, it's still a valid contract. And if you, if you're not, if you're, if you don't have it, or you're withholding it or hiding it somewhere or something. Well, that's, or you give it to your best friend at the last minute. It's still a valid contract and you owe the person the money. So then, part of the question that arises is, well, if it's a kind of theft, why couldn't you be put in debtor's prison? Exactly. And I think that's a very valid question to raise. But I think, and I know from your writing that you're not satisfied with this, but I still think, and I'm, again, I'm open to argument on all this except for the fact I'm not writing on it anymore. So, but anyway, I think, you know, there are gradations just as on robbery. There's robbery of your house when you're not there and there's a robbery when you're, you know, you're there. There's in the streets, there's robbery with, you know, a gun on you and there's robbery where they just snap and snatch and grab. So I think just as there's that there's different kinds of theft and there's lesser and greater theft and it would be this proportional to the amount of intention that's involved and so forth. This all affects the gravity of what has been done to you. I'm talking about you, the victim who didn't get paid back. So, that's part of why I don't say we're debtors prison. I think no one can speak for Murray Rothbard anymore, but I think it's similar ideas figured in his thinking. Again, I just think it, you know, particularly with specific unique items. The idea is very troubling. Let's say you have the Mona Lisa, all right, and you sold it to me but the delivery is supposed to be in the future. So at the last minute I give it to somebody else. That's crazy. You have to be still liable to turn over the thing that you owe. So I'm not, I mean, I'm kind of flippantly giving this example and it's a much more subtle topic. But anyway, that's, that's my view. Now, there's another issue that you don't really get into very much, but I think is a complicated one for this theory and is an area that deserves additional, you know, additional research program on anybody who writes in this in the future. And that is the slavery equivalent onerous damages issue. So, you know, the examples, I agree to sing. I'm an opera singer and I agree to sing in the San Francisco opera and then when the time comes I don't show up. I'm often drunk somewhere or something, whatever. So, or I just decided I don't want to do it. So, can somebody compel specific performance. Well, you and I both agree. No, they can't. But now what about a performance bond of some sort. So, I put forth some cut in the contract made with me to come and do the singing. I say well if I don't show up I owe $5,000 or $7,000 some number that maybe even more than what I was going to be paid but it would be enough to make me want to show up there. And the question is what if it were $1 trillion or something huge. Now you might say well, of course, I the opera singer don't have the one trillion so that's maybe you take care of it. But if someone doesn't agree with you, is there another problem here and the question might be, is it the equivalent to slavery is the burden.  And I don't, you know, because I'm not writing in this. I don't have a quick answer. But I do think that this is an area that deserves further research further writing sensible writing. Well, I think it's a realistic realistic issue. The way I've interpreted your theory and Rothbard's in my Misesian, Rothbardian hoppy and way is that it's all about transfer of title. And theoretically you could engage in a future title transfer, which say to a debtor which basically transfers every piece of property that you ever acquire forever.  And if you did that it would be equivalent or tantamount to a type of slavery. And so maybe some argument like that could be used to justify some type of bankruptcy type of provision which I think is getting at the same insight that you're talking about here. But I don't, I don't, so I am uncomfortable with this idea that you could convey everything including, you know, morsel of food and drink of water for the future. But, but anyway, the point that we're both getting at is that this is an area that deserves further exploration. And so I am uncomfortable with the whole idea of bankruptcy. And this is why maybe Marcus Cole has something to contribute or future other future people that maybe aren't born yet. Who knows. So, so generally, you know, the idea of bankruptcy is you say, I can't pay, you know, and I want to start over and then the law makes various provisions and it might make a homestead exemption and whatever whatever. I am not really comfortable with that. I think you still, you still owe the money and you can't just get out of it and I'm really troubled. There are people, even people that might claim they're libertarians. I don't want to get, I sound like I'm getting into a big heresy hunt here but during the last financial crisis with all the homes going into foreclosure and things like that. There were people going around advocating that people who were having trouble paying their mortgages just walk away. Walk away. I think that's the title of his book, Walk Away.  And the system has already built into it an expectation and a certain number of people walk away. So do it. I don't agree with that. Well, anyway, so that's that's an area that I think needs. And again, you know, I'm not writing in this area, but I, the troubles me and seems to be against libertarian values, but I'm open to argument. Well, it seems to me that the terms of the contract matter and the terms of the contract that would be enforced in a free society matters because the terms of the contracts in today's law may be influenced by the political climate and the laws that exist. So it's hard to have a pristine approach to this but let me, if you don't mind, let me get your opinion. So one of the other things that you try and do to address some of that is, you pose different, you know, you could have additional provisions like to prevent to provide for the case in which the person doesn't have the money. And in a way, you're kind of, as I said at the beginning of this interview, you're trying to get back to the point that, you know, you don't really want people to get off scot-free without doing what they, oh, and so you are trying to kind of recover this to some extent. I'm trying to get off. Go ahead. Go ahead. I also wanted to compliment you that I thought you've done a good statement of the abandonment issue. So this is a potentially tricky issue because I've got to turn this off. I have to turn you off and talk to you later. Okay. Take your time. You're talking about the abandonment issue. This is related to a lot of what we've been talking about. So if you can acquire property and do it through systematically making it part of your projects and the phrase that we often use is homestead it. You also have to be able to, so you're marking it, you're setting out boundaries, you're systematically mixing labor with it and so forth. You also have to be able to abandon it. So this is complicated because you have to make an objective recognizable over saying showing your intent. It's a little bit tricky and this is another area where further, you know, writing needs to be done on this. So let's take the Love Canal case. Okay. This is sort of not as bad as, you know, as was shown in Reason Magazine many years ago. The government was all mixed up in it, but we'll just call it some pollution thing. Okay.  Now, maybe nobody occupies it, but let's say it bubbles over or it's emitting harmful rays or it's somehow has some kind of geyser effect and it's spraying out into the atmosphere and falling on other people. Can you just, you know, abandon it and say, this is not my property anymore? I don't think so. It's just like I shoot a bullet on a way of abandoning the bullet, but the bullet keeps going and it hits somewhere. Are you planning to land mine or something like that? Right. Exactly. There's a cause for it. But anyway, there's room for more writing and thinking about this. I agree completely. Then I think you get in interestingly into the issue of inalienability and punishment. And so to explain this a little further. So let's so let's say we're in agreement that there's that people are inalienable. They can't sell themselves, but their material goods may be intellectual goods. This is another whole topic that I don't want to get into. But anyway, there are material goods that are alienable and that people are transferring titles to and so forth. And now let's say you commit a crime. Okay. And punishing you a restitution effort might take what you have or it might compel you to do something to restore to the other person or it might imprison you, especially if it's a retributive punishment approach. And libertarians are divided among classical liberals are divided among different punishment theories, but certainly the most common are restoration or and retribution. Kind of balance. Right. Right defying the situation. Right. Right defying in various ways. So this might and then depends on the idea that you are inalienable and that people can't compel specific performance from you. I agree. So I think this issue which you raise and is one that needs further discussion. And so I think that's an area that. Well, let me if you don't mind, let me ask you. So I'm kind of through my thoughts on the whole thing and I do need to call back the person that was calling me there. Let me let me thank you for taking your time to speak with me and I really appreciate what you've done. And I don't know if you're interested, but I'd be happy to speak with you just personally in the future if you're interested. I really appreciate what you've done in the past. And I think it's it's a it's a great endeavor. And so I will thank you for your time. And I will let you go and I will send you a copy of everything and we can talk about it before. Okay, well, I authorize you to I authorize you to post this and in whatever form you want to. Thank you, Mr. I appreciate it. Nice talking to you in person. Thank you.


Hello everybody. I'm a researcher at the University of Melbourne, working in collaboration with museums here, local museums, to advance their use of innovative technologies. Unfortunately, I couldn't join today because of some unexpected circumstances, but I'm happy to share with you my project virtually, and I hope that this presentation will be engaging, useful, and it will lead to some interesting discussions in the end. Today I would like to present my project, which is developing a dynamic online application, Museums of PowerMap. The agenda for today is as follows. First, I will present the conceptual framework of this project. Second, I will share details about the current pilot project that I'm working on in collaboration with their local museum, the Australian Center for the Moving Image. And finally, I will demonstrate their demo version of the soft power method system that has been developed. Soft Power is the term first coined by American professor of international relations Joseph Nye to describe an ability of the country to influence behavior of others through persuasion and attraction. Nye argues that this new type of power offers an alternative solution to address the complexity of international relations by employing culture as the foundation for international influence upon other societies. A country on the international stage can achieve influence by building networks, communicating compelling narratives, establishing international rules, and drawing on the resources that make this country naturally attractive to the world. In the last decades, the concept of soft power has gained a strong international popularity among politicians, academics, and practitioners in the field of international relations. More importantly, soft power as a concept started to be employed not only in relation to countries as the main actors on the world stage, but also to non-state actors and, of course, museums. A huge inspiration in my project is the book by Lorde and Black and Barrick Museums, Cities and Soft Power, published in 2015 by the American Alliance of Museums. And the book illustrates that in the 21st century, museums are experiencing a new transformation turning them from sites of branded experiences to the places of soft power. Produced by museum professionals and cultural consultants rather than academics, the book draws on a number of case studies from around the world, which indicate that non-museums really play a leading role in growing competition among cities for talent, tourism, and art. Museums acquire soft power by enhancing the importance of cities and empowering their residents and visitors. They become centers for social activism, innovation, and technology development. They attract visitors and generate economic impact. They facilitate international connections and host important global events. A nation's soft power is increasingly subject to measurements with, for example, portlands of power 30 or a global power city index reports providing an evidence of this trend. These initiatives have generated a series of global indicators based on culture, education, science, politics, and of course economy to annually assess the extent to which nations have risen through or declined upon these indexes. Challenging these attempts to measure soft power, my research reconfigures the framework of soft power evaluations by stressing three important points that have been overlooked in previous research. First, I argue that measuring soft power of a whole country is misleading. Since these evaluations, they don't take into consideration their complex nature of different and very often competing actors within the country who generate and exert different degrees of soft power upon global publics. Instead, I focus on museums as important actors in the international arena which has their distinctive identities, brands, audiences, and of course followers. Second, I employ a specially oriented software represented by geographic information system to map and visualize soft power geographical thread and reach, an important variable that is usually missing in existing evaluation dashboard systems. Specifically, my research demonstrates that it is not conductive to measures of power in general terms, assuming that the power appeal of a particular country or an actor is the same in different geographical locations around the globe. Instead, I employ cultural analytics and city statistics of specific locations of specific cities and these statistics can include cultural diversity and vibrancy, local language and religion to evaluate the soft power appeal to people living in this specific area, considering it is a politically, culturally and economically defined local. Finally, my research emphasizes the needs to focus on evaluations of soft power capacities or resources rather than inputs. It is important to note that Nike himself indicated that soft power is generated through activation of key resources. Fresh sociologists and philosophers Pierre Bourdon also stressed that power usually takes the form of resources, which he called capitals, that can be created, accumulated, exchanged, and finally consumed. He identified various types of capital including our cultural capital, social capital, and economic capital which are evenly distributed among social classes. Most importantly, from this theory, capitals as forms of power exist not in isolation, but are relational to each other and transferable. They operate in fields or structured spaces of struggle over specific types of capitals and can manifest, can be manifested through symbolic power, the most powerful force which we can also define as soft power. So, according to Bourdon, all types of capital can function as a symbolic capital when it obtains explicit or practical recognition of legitimacy. So, in my work, I take the correlation between the Nike soft power and the Bourdon symbolic capital as the main source of inspiration to propose a comprehensive framework that can clearly articulate the social soft power in relation to museums. The geographic information system software that I'm developing right now operates as a combination of deep mapping layers, each representing a different dimension of museum capitals tied to a specific location on the globe. The resources of cultural layer exposes the global diversity and scope of museum collections, highlighting the geographic areas of their origins and calculating the collections power appeal index in relation to different countries. The outputs of social layer maps complex museum ecosystems by visualizing museum social resources and telling stories about the engagements with the constituencies, partners and audiences on the local and global level. The inputs or economic layer builds on the metric of economic effects measures through ticket sales at home and abroad, local international program service revenue and income received through peripheral services demonstrating the local power of attraction measures through economic gains. In my project, I argue that mapping different types of resources and capitals can visualize museum symbolic capital or soft power. The main goal of this dynamic mapping system that I'm developing is to map various types of capital to explore correlations between them and to identify factors which pay an important role in time space development of museum soft power. However, you can imagine this is quite big and ambitious project. To start with more feasible goals, I have developed a pilot in collaboration with Australian Center for the Modern Image, or ACME. ACME has its roots in the State Film Center, which was established in 1946 to maintain a film collection for public use. ACME opened in 2010 and it really became an iconic map landmark. Today it houses the nation's largest collection of moving image documents, including videos, films, rock content, gaming and other hybrid forms of digital media. A young, dynamic and ambitious institution, ACME in 15 years of its existence managed to develop a large audience, reaching in last year more than 1.5 million visitors to the Federation Square where it is located and more than half a million attendants of its international exhibitions in six different countries around the world. With 22% international visitors, it generates more than 11.5 million dollars through ticket sales and program service revenue on an annual basis. As a partner in the project, ACME is providing access to its historical institutional records and digital expertise to develop the geographic information system which will trace and measure the development of the ACME soft power in time space. The pilot project aims to employ museum records in the last 15 years in collection exposition and strategic programming to map and visualize a growing geographic diversity of the museum cultural resources and activities to explore how this international exposure affects audiences and affects the development of a brand recognition of this institution around the world. The first stage in the pilot project that has been completed is mapping ACME collections and calculating collection appeal power index to different countries. First, it is important to say that ACME has unbelievably rich diverse collections. It has more than 200,000 original items and more than 40,000 titles and the majority of the collections are available online and it has been catalogued. The collection also is quite diverse because 70% of films produced outside Australia and not only in the United States or the United Kingdom, for example, but also in France, in Germany, in Japan, in China or in New Zealand. Furthermore, the ACME collections are quite linguistically diverse. There are movies in around 49 different languages which have spoken in more than 230 countries around the world. For example, extensive collections in English, which originate from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and the UK and other countries, provide the potential content access to people from 100 countries. While, for example, films in French could potentially reach people in 48 countries around the world and films in Arabic could target populations of 27 countries. Such a linguistically diverse content provides an opportunity for a much larger scope of potential audiences to understand the potential appeal power of the ACME collections to people from different countries. I consider two main types of criteria. First is the collections criteria and in this case I explored how many collections items were produced in a certain country and then I calculated how many films in the ACME collections are actually in the language or languages spoken in this country. On the other hand, I looked also at social economic criteria to bring to light some nuances. For example, I explored integration statistics in Melbourne to find out how many tourists come to this city from a specific country on an annual basis and how many people, for example, live right now in Melbourne as immigrants from this specific country. And finally, I considered the internet penetration rate, which affects the collection access and discoverability online. Finally, I calculated the collection appeal power index as a weight sum of what subsided sub-indexes across two different criteria that I have just established. This is a video capture of the demo version of the method system, which is available online. It shows the ACME collection appeal power index in different countries, which ranges from 0 to 1. And there is visualized on the map by the intensity of the blue color applied to different countries. When you click a country, the app indicates how many movies were produced in these specific countries and also how many films in the ACME collections are in the spoken language or languages of this country. It also considers different secondary factors that we talked about earlier, such as internet penetration rate, ancestry, immigration and tourism. So if you, for example, go to the UK, you can see that the ACME collection appeal power index in this country is pretty high, which almost reaches 0.9. And this is not a surprise because the majority of the ACME collections are produced in English language. As you can see here, there is a great number of movies in English. And also our internet penetration rate in the UK is pretty high. Also, if you consider social demographics, the British ancestry is very common among the Melbourne population. And there are still a lot of immigrants who come from the UK to live in Melbourne. And of course, there are a lot of tourism who come from the UK to visit Melbourne every year. And even though this tourism rate here seems pretty small, but in comparison to other countries, believe me, it's very high. Because there are many countries on the map where there are no people, there are zero people who actually come to visit Melbourne. For example, Egypt, we can see zero, or some other countries in Africa, or how many people from Russia. Not so many. So this is the statistics for 2016, which shows that, for example, in 2016, there were almost zero tourists coming from Russia to the UK. And these factors actually play a really important role in calculating this power appeal index of the collection. People are living in different countries around the world because they show the potential and a chance of collection discoverability and access to the population living in this country. Even though the first stage of the pilotage is completed, there are a lot of challenges that are needed to be addressed. And first of all, uncataloged or poorly annotated items in the collections complicates the mapping process. Second, in order to tell meaningful stories about the collections, one has to conduct an archival research of the institutional rapids, which dates back to 1946. Finally, in the last 50 years, ECME has produced around 400 movies about immigrant communities in Melbourne, which add more complexity to map the collection diversity. The mapping exercise of the collection revealed that there are gaps in the institutional records and the collection's soft power is not really activated yet. So the next stage in the project is to map global social ecosystem of ECME by looking at its international engagements with other museums, audiences and cultural institutions around the world. For example, in 2015, ECME started to implement a series of long buster exhibits in different countries in collaboration with the Dreamworks Animation, their very famous Hollywood company. The exhibition features over 400 items including rare never seen before drawings, models, original artworks, their interviews and interactive displays from the Dreamworks. And there it has been through in different venues around the globe, which include first Arts Science Museum in Singapore, the Papa Museum in New Zealand, Seoul Museum of Arts and South Korea, National Taiwan Science and Education Centre in Taipei, Museum of Contemporary Art in Monterrey in Mexico and Canadian Museum of History in Ottawa, Canada. In each specific location, the exhibit attracted different amount of audiences and generated different economic revenue. Using cultural analytics, it is interesting to explore what factors influence the generation of soft power in different places. Factors for consideration include those that define the enabling environment and these are the city population and diversity including immigrants, city international tourism, cultural vibrancy, cultural infrastructure, competition, cultural participation and cultural consumption. Also it is important to take into account cost museum factors which include local museum audiences and diversity, museum ranking among tourists, architecture and facilities, for example historical sites of significance of famous design buildings like the Guggenheim Bilbao for example, which plays an important role in generating this extra power of attraction of audiences and tourists. And of course the brand and the popularity of the partners involved in the project plays a huge role. So for example the global reputation and visibility of the Dreamworks make this exhibition even more appealing among audiences around the world, which were already exposed to a lot of very famous movies of this company before the exhibition came to visit the city. Also cultural assets play a huge role and in these big blockbusters they become really activated and they become really good sources of soft power. Right now I'm in the process to map the blockbuster, local impacts in different countries and will be happy to share results once available. As you can see I'm in the middle of my pilot project development and there is a long way for me to complete it. However I envision this pilot as a robust platform for developing a more universal museum application, not only for example for the Acme Museum here in Australia, but that can be actually used by any museum around the world to visualize and explore the soft power potential. It is a pleasure to present this project to you today and I'm looking forward to receiving your questions or comments positive or negative via email. I will be happy to continue conversation with those who are interested in the project and thank you so much for your attention and enjoy the rest of your conference.