Well the Crossing Arts Alliance in Brainerd wanted to add a pop of color to this drab winter so they created a new exhibit that does just that. Lakeland News Reporter Cheryl Moore has a preview for this week's In Focus. When the thrill of the holidays is over and we're waiting for the snow to melt on the ground, it feels like everyone could use a little bit of sunshine to get them through the day. That's the bright idea that led the Crossing Art Alliance to display their new exhibit, a riot of color. So we asked our artists to provide work that was colorful. We were open to any medium as long as they gave us color. You can find the brightest of reds and the coolest of blues throughout the exhibit and it's not limited to paint on canvas. We have fiber work. We have some more sculptural pieces, paintings, pastels, mixed media, so it's a pretty wide variety of types of art with that connecting theme of they're really bright and cheerful. Diane Rumberg is one of the featured artists in the Riot of Color exhibit. She used acrylics on a plastic paper called Yupo paper to create what she's named a floral explosion 3. This was a very fun piece to make because it's a rather large piece and it's just freedom. It's just the freedom of working with color and paint. Takes a while to dry because it's plastic so the paint is sitting there but you can wipe out and you can add on and you can make marks as I've done so it's very fun to work with. Now when we finally hit March and we've been a winner for a little while it's safe to say it starts to feel a little gray outside. And that's the whole idea behind the Riot of Color to bring a little life into the season.  You have to smile at some of these pieces and I think having these bright colors in front of us before we head back out into the snow kind of helps us leave with a better sense of happiness. A Riot of Color will make its official debut tomorrow and to go with the rainbow theme attendees can expect a few vibrant goodies. We have our opening reception on Saturday from 12 until 2 and we have asked our volunteers to help us make some treats that were just as colorful as the artwork so we'll have an opening reception some of the artists will be here and we will enjoy colorful treats too. Reporting in Brainerd with This Week's in Focus, Cheryl Moore, Lakeland News. The Riot of Color exhibit will run through the end of March and mission to the gallery is always free. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


Good evening everyone and welcome. My name is Melissa Armel and I wanted to do a lecture tonight on stops That means stops that you would take a trade and put in a stop I call it a hard stop. Actually the stops that I take in trades are limit orders. What does that mean? That means if I have a stop at $15 for example if I'm short the stock and a stop if I'm let's just say I'm short the stock at $14.90 I put a stop at $15 that means I'm risking 10 cents or 10 pennies if the stop if the stock runs over 15 through 15 at 15 and beyond I get taken out. That means I lose 10 pennies 10 cents, okay? The reason that I trade with stops whether I have 2000 3000 4000 5000 10,000 shares is because of the fact that I want to know what my calculator risk is. I don't feel comfortable trading without knowing in my mind the worst-case scenario the worst-case scenario is I will lose a thousand dollars $1200 $1500 whatever I choose to do in the stop and the stop is in my class Which I teach this it's a difference between the entry and the stop It's a difference between where I'm entering the stock and where I'm putting the stop and so if I'm shorting It's always the number below it is the entry and the number above it's a stop. Okay now. Let me finish. I Talked to someone the other day This was this is actually a student and he's a student of mine And he told me that he's not always putting in the stops It was like going to the confessional and he was confessing to me that sometimes he doesn't put in stops I said oh my lanta That means that the trains that you lose you have an unlimited amount of risk You have essentially You could lose your whole account It doesn't make any sense.  I'm out The idea of dreaming and helping and wishing that the stock is gonna Pull back and go back to the main thing. I mean I will tell you one thing that I do extremely well I know like a level that if the stock goes over this price, it's not gonna work It is killing get out put the stop It's not gonna work a lot of people say well I don't like to use tops they get run up and then they come down to work No, no, no, no wrong. Oh those people that say that and trade like that lose a crap lot of money I have absolutely no idea how to trade and don't know where to stop I use stops if I ever get to the point where I'm running the hedge fund You know what? I won't use stops But at the end of the day until I get to that point if I ever get to that point as long as I'm trading my own money I will be using stops and I know where that stop has to be Now what if I take a trade and it gets sucked out and I'm down I'm down a thousand dollars the stock rallies holds. It's a short it shorts It drops it falls it falls in a stretch to fall rise back again. I can always take a second trade I'm I'm still down then the amount of the first stop But at least I know that's all I'm down and then I can take a second trade or Or I can choose not to take a second trade if I've lost conviction and and stop on the day and lose one risk unit Do you have any idea how much money people lose by not having stops? crazy amounts of money I Can come back from a one loss in like a second the day that something works I don't I don't give a crap about one loss But what is concerning and what I know from prior past experience back in the day when I used to trade and didn't think about these things When I take something over and over and I put the stop I'm telling you right now learn this from you right now today Put the stop in no learn how to do it put the stop in Retake it if you want to watch a scenario What if you don't retake it and you take the one risk unit loss who cares you get up tomorrow you make money You make three four or five risk units and you pay for the stop of the previous day and you make money the next day What I hate to see happen to people and what I'm telling you right now And I'm trying to teach you in this lesson tonight is that don't don't don't risk a certain amount of money Let it go craze only over that amount of money To the point that you have to take five or six trades To even get back break even of the one trade of the loss that you never put the stop and let run against you So, I mean that's suggestive tonight But I'm telling you there is a way to learn where to put the stop I teach you that in the golden gap class any person that comes to me and says they don't believe in stops Or they don't work or whatever is is ridiculousness and it's crazy That person doesn't want to deal with the idea of the fact that you actually have to assume the risk Take the risk have calculated risk and kill it not every trade works I would love to sit here and tell you that I have a hundred percent win ratio that would be a lie That's not true. Some trades. I take do not work and thank goodness I can take a stop. Do you do you know my life would be like if I couldn't put in the stop? I wouldn't trade because I have to have a certain amount of money that I risk that I know if it doesn't work I'll lose and I know all the other days it works And that's what a system is and that's where you follow it and it's called a trading plan, by the way And you must do it. I take my stops I know where they are if you don't believe in stops come take my class Even know how to where to put them come take my class.  You can't just you cannot train like that as a day trader It doesn't make any sense. It makes no sense whatsoever This is Melissa arm of the stocks which calm email me if you want to sign up for the golden gap class this weekend January 9th And 10th. I'm telling you I teach in the class where to put the stop where to exit the trade It's not working and you do need to know that and by the way, you can figure that out I know how to do it. I will always use stops and if you're not then ask yourself why you might be in La La Land or Completely not wanting to acknowledge the fact that you don't have something right with your trading and need to learn it Don't take an unlimited risk in your trades. The market is serious business people You can make a lot of money in the market, but you have to think about what you're doing It has to make sense for the risk to reward Think about that when you're trading and email me if you have more questions. Have a great night everyone


Yes, it's not a spelling mistake, as I was asked this morning. Tainter Webb, it'll be the death of all of us. I want to actually conduct a little experiment. Could everyone just stick up their hands please? OK. Who here has had a will done in the last ten years? Embarrassingly, I stick down my hand. All lawyers are terrible at doing their own wills. So we've got about, I'd say, 40%, maybe 30% of the people here have done a will in the last ten years.  The last ten years of course being the period when social media has really come to the fore.  Excellent. Excellent. I'm preaching to the young convertor. Neither have I, I should say. I have in fact, though, acted for some clients who are starting to think about this, and this is what I'm going to talk about today. The reason for the slide, of course, is that Monty Python's The Life of Brian has recently been announced to be the most popular song at People's Funerals. We're not doing too badly. Only 50% of Americans have wills at all. So we're probably a little bit better than that. I suspect that if I'd asked you, the people who have wills at all, we would have got much more than 50%. We've probably got 50% in the last ten years. So what am I talking about here in terms of social media? These are some stats and I'll run through some more stats. But as I'm running through these, I want you to bear in mind the two things which I'm talking about in terms of social media. One is the objects, or the data, or the photos, the videos, even emails, if I want to extend it further out, beyond pure social media. So the objects, the things that we upload, the things that we send, the things that we create. The second aspect that I want to emphasize is the accounts themselves. That is the service which is provided by the social media platform. Miya's talk yesterday reminded me, agonisingly, of my first experience when I started blogging. As a lawyer, of course, I researched these things very carefully and I decided on using Posteris. And Posteris, of course, is one of those platforms where my carefully curated links, my effort that had gone into creating the look and feel of the site or of my pages, was destroyed when the platform was taken over by none other than Twitter and dismantled. Now, I did manage to export the things out of it, but as anyone who has exported things off a social media platform will know, the export is nothing like as rich as the material that rested on the site itself. You don't get the links, you don't get the look and feel. Oftentimes, you don't get the other side of a dialogue or a conversation. Some more stats, you will have all seen these sorts of stats. The interesting thing about this one, I always think, is we really get a buzz out of social media while it's just a new world, but when you look at that, look at how many emails people send compared to the rest of it. 204 million email messages which is dwarfing the rest of the social media environment. So if you extend social media out beyond your typical platforms, email is still disturbingly after so long a period of time the be-all and end-all of how we communicate. I know it is in my 1000 plus level inbox at the moment. Some more stats. I circled one which is interesting in the sense that one-fifth of people using social media are in that 65-plus age bracket and that's one of the fastest growing demographics. So in terms of people dying and having a social media presence, that is already a significant number and is going to be a much increasingly growing number. Some more stats. In terms of things which people do with social media, the development of items that are uploaded, people who post blogs. Again, showing obviously a lot of creation of material, the growth in the creation of that material. So what do these social media platforms do with this stuff that we upload? So a few quotes from Facebook's data use policy. Buried about five pages in to their terms of use, away in the background of a couple of pages. It took me a while to find it, I must admit. Of course, we all read those, don't we? We all read those 35 pages of beautifully crafted legal language when we tick that little tick box. I hope so. I get paid a lot for writing them. Of course, never read any of them.  Interesting there. Metadata. We'll talk about that in a minute. Just checking out what the stats are in New Zealand. This is taken from Stitix NZ's most recent figures.  That's total, so that includes children. As I understand it, the figures are pretty high in terms of children who immediately as they're born to the Facebook page. Despite the fact that it used to be the case that you had to be 13 to have one. I had that argument with my daughter. Interesting stats there. So if we're thinking about the fact that all of these people are creating all of this information, then there are a lot of cat pictures. And someone owns or has carefully curated those pictures. So what I wanted to try and do at this was, well, that must be a lot. I'm not particularly good at maths. So I started off trying to work out, well, gee, if I multiply those older people and try and work out their mortality rate, multiply that by the number of objects that they are likely to be putting up, divide that by the number of people dying, multiply by how long is my arm, and create an algorithm or a piece of calculation to work out how much is it going to be. It could be a huge number. And that's the number I came up with. So as I said, at the moment when we think about it, we think of the items that people are putting up and also the contracts or the relationships or the terms of use that these sites have. That second aspect is pretty important when we're thinking about this issue. As we'll see in a moment, the law, as with most laws in the online environment, struggles to keep up. We have to pour it into new bottles. We have to morph it and adapt it. People like myself stretch it beyond breaking point sometimes. And our clients are threatened with that breaking. But the important thing from this perspective is that the sites themselves really control it. So when you're talking about property or digital assets, whatever it may be, the typical situation is that the property will flow to the estate. But these are just contractual rights. Licences to use a platform. So that right itself, possibly, maybe isn't property, it may be something slightly different. But it is shaped and crafted by the terms of use of the particular platform. So that 35 pages of material that you blithely tick the box to will control to some extent what happens to your digital assets after your death. And that's a problem because there is complete lack of uniformity around the sites. So I've chosen three examples here. Facebook, Google and Twitter. Facebook, possibly, is the most advanced in thinking about this because, as you saw from the previous stat, even in 2012, 30 million people on Facebook were no longer on Earth physically. So Facebook has a system where people can memorialise the page. So your Facebook page can be memorialised by your next-of-kin or executor. What happens is that it shuts down certain functionality of the site. No further friends can be added. Friends can continue to post things like birthday notifications get shut down, which again is one of those horrible things about Facebook in the sense that if you don't do something with it, it just continues to turn on as though you're still alive. So I, for example, actually it wasn't Facebook, it was LinkedIn. I shouldn't disparage Facebook too much. Well, maybe I will. It was LinkedIn. And I got one of those typical It's X's birthday sentiment congratulation. X happened to be Eric Hertz, the CEO of Two Degrees, who had died in a tragic plane crash only a few months earlier. Now, I just happened to know that, of course, but if I hadn't known it, I might well have if I was one of these people who send these very sincere birthday wishes. I might have sent that birthday wish and, of course, his site may have been monitored by one of his family members and that would have been terribly upsetting. So important, not just from a legal platform perspective, but from a humanity perspective to understand that these things do take on a life of their own. So Facebook allows that memorialisation process. Twitter seems to run a fairly ad hoc sort of process.  And they will then process it and decide what to do. With Facebook, for example, when they brought out the system of memorialisation, which is three or four or five years ago now, it was quite locked down. They really were trying to make sure that it was curated properly. They had people reviewing the posts to make sure that they weren't insensitive and so on. So quite a high degree of hands-on curation. But as with everything with Facebook, they keep changing the rules. So they've gradually allowed more, what they would call, more flexibility. Others would call more monetisation of the information which is put up there. So you're starting to see things like advertisements come up around it. You're starting to see other people being able to view, at least, view some of the material on the sites. Twitter, as I said, is a bit ad hoc. You send it in and they decide you make a request as to what's going to happen. Typically the request that they allow is for the tweets to be exported, which you can, of course, do yourself. But once you're dead, you can't. You have to get someone else to do it for you. You're executive, so you have to prove, the executives have to prove that they do now have the rights to act in your estate, whether it's be with probate or some sort of administrative papers. Google sort of similar to Twitter. Again, the shutdown. Neither of those sites have a sort of a very practised memorialisation system. The important thing, though, with all of the sites, in fact, just about every site you see in a social media sense, they will all say that the contract that you have, the licence to use their services, is not transferable. It is personal to you. So, in a sense, what they're saying is, if you die, that's the end of the story. It doesn't, they would say, not automatically transfer to your estate. Now, here's where it's important to distinguish between the licence to use the system, the platform, and the material which you have uploaded. So, I'm not talking about the material in the instance. I'm talking about the use of the licence to use the platform. So, the licence to continue to have a Facebook page or to continue to use your Twitter avatar account or a Google YouTube account. All of those things are expressed in their contracts to be non-transferable and therefore don't go with your estate unless they allow otherwise. That's the default position that they've set up. In other words, they do what they like and they can change the rules, as we've seen so often, whenever they like, as they often do. Different, of course, with the actual objects that you have uploaded, those to the chagrin of social media sites have been carefully now expressed to belong in most instances to you. So, your intellectual property, your copyright in those materials is retained by you when you upload the material. You grant a licence to the site so that they can distribute the material through the use of the actual system itself. So, if you upload a photo to Flickr, then you retain the intellectual property or don't, depending on what you want to do. You can give it away in a Creative Commons 0 licence if you want to, or say it's public domain. But as the default position, you own it. You decide what's going to happen to it. The site is granted a licence so that they can display that Flickr image so that other people can see it, which without that licence that you've granted to them in the terms of use would be an infringement of copyright by Flickr. So, those objects are, in some senses, your property, and do, in some senses, as we'll see, transfer across in your estate to your executives for those of you who have done wills. For those of you who have done digital asset wills, then even better, you'll have specified that. So, how does the law deal with this? As I've said before, not particularly well. So, these are the two pieces of legislation which are primarily govern dealing with the estates. The wills act deals with how you right your will and whether it's binding and that it's being signed properly by yourself and the presence of two other people who are independent and so on. Once you've done all that, then you're into the Administration Act, which also governs people who don't have wills and sets up default rules as to how property goes in that situation to cascading level of seniority or presence in a person's life, wives, siblings, children, so on, parents. But here we're starting to get into, in the law, the absolute morass of definition around what we mean by property. And these are all definitions which were designed for an analogue meatspace world, not for a digital world. They really are still focused to a large degree on the tangible, the physical. They're not particularly well crafted for dealing with the digital, the intangible. So, I started casting around, where can I find more guidance as to what we're talking about here? So, I, of course, in this context, look to NZ Goals to see what NZ Goals said about, sort of public data. Can I get any guidance from that? Not really because copyright is quite a difficult concept when applied to digital assets. And this is what copyright says about intellectual, about copyright material. It says it's a property right. That's a good start. At least we're on the same track. And it exists in these things. The difficulty with copyright, of course, in the New Zealand context, difficulty in this context anyway, is that it's not registered. So, there's nowhere you can go to find out in the absence of someone actually proclaiming that they own the copyright and then being able to determine whether, in fact, they did create that original work and that it's not infringing someone else's material, there's nowhere you can go. Different with trademarks, registered trademarks and patents. There are obviously items of property which are registered. The register itself creates the property right or delivers the property right. So, those are much more easily transferable. So, if we're talking about a piece of digital, a digital logo or something like that, then if that's been registered, no problem, that's simple. And the Trademarks Act deals with that sort of thing. Patents, similarly, if we're talking about a patent with a piece of software prior to New Zealand seeing the light and getting rid of software patents, then that would be the same sort of thing. It's registrable, registered, transferable. I was interested to see in the Facebook's teams of use that they called out metadata, which throws up a whole another area of confusion in this context. Confusion in lots of contexts is these two gentlemen hashed out in front of the select committee. But in this context, complete open slather. No one quite knows from a legal perspective who owns the metadata that is generated when you interact with a social media site. Is it your metadata? Is it the site's metadata? Is it some sort of information commons shared environment? Who can control it? Who can maintain it? Again, you come back to Facebook's terms of use, which effectively say you're giving it to us, we can do what we like with it. We can change it. We'll tell you what we're going to do, but we can change what we're going to do and as you were seen from the terms of use I put up on the screen earlier, those terms of use are pretty opaque. They talk in very, very large generalities around yes, we can share it with our partners, yes, we can use it to improve site performance, yes, we can use it to ensure that your experience is the best possible experience, but that really doesn't tell anything, does it? It doesn't really tell us what they're going to do with it, where that data is going to end up. And so we end up in the privacy sphere and privacy in New Zealand, this is from our Privacy Act, again Data the Act gives you a clue 1993, a little out of date in the digital world. Luckily we are looking and the government has committed to spending a significant amount of money in gearing up the Privacy Commission we have a new Privacy Commissioner John Edwards who is very much a failure with the digital world as we've already seen with him dispensing with his hard copy his hard copy monthly issues and going to a blog pretty radical the interesting thing about this of course is that bottom line which I've highlighted under New Zealand's law deceased people have no privacy protection so we can't even the fact that we are saying that we don't quite know whether this metadata or this data or this information which we have shared through a social media platform is property and therefore belongs to us or the licence continues beyond our death, even though we can't even say that, but we can't even say that that information is once we've died private anymore because our act specifically says it's not private now there may be spillover effects and I think me as example yesterday of the fact that when you find out some information about a particular person and spread that further out you're actually finding out information about their families and the people around them there may be some privacy aspects of that that we can latch onto and say well actually the fact that you are divulging information about this deceased person is actually telling private information about another family member who is still alive so that family member might have some rights to preclude that information being disclosed but the fundamental point is that the deceased person themselves has no privacy which is pretty strange really when you think about it it's the quintessential common human factor not the lowest common denominator the highest common factor that we all die so the fact that we somehow lose all rights to privacy in circumstances which if anyone has been involved in the distribution of estates or working through disparate families will know that those sorts of pieces of information which then bubble to the surface as the matriarch or the patriarch or Uncle John dies are extremely personal and extremely private and they are very difficult to deal with sometimes so the fact that that information about Uncle John who ended up having a affair with Aunty Judy who was not his wife is a pretty personal private piece of information but unless Aunty Judy is still alive that information is now public access information great for some of you in this room I suspect to track that genealogy and to find out what happened and why Aunty Judy then went to Australia but not so good for some of the other family members so getting further afield an eminent legal writer in New Zealand wrote this one just recently our Court of Appeal in its wisdom has just come out with a decision which reinforces an earlier decision which says that data is not property for the purpose of the Crimes Act which is pretty damn weird because the provision they were talking about is a provision which was inserted in about 2006 in a bill which was to deal with computer crimes so the computer crimes provisions of our Crimes Act don't deal with digital data yeah me and a few others think we might do something about this interestingly the decision on which it was based the decision called Dixon this was a watch-horn decision it was about Ian Wishart's book long series of cross litigation and so on as to whether sources could be revealed shades of Niki Harger and so on the decision on which this was based the Dixon decision is now being appealed to the Supreme Court and myself and a few others are considering seeking to intervene in the Supreme Court that is to find an organisation gosh what organisation could I find looking at you Andy to intervene in the case to seek leave to intervene you have to seek leave in any court case to intervene as a interested party beyond the interests of the two participants in the case to try and work through our court could come to the conclusion that someone accessing for illegal purposes very valuable data and in this case it was the complainant was tug oil the information was a significantly valuable series of geospatial oil research information which they had collected some of which and I can hear Glen and others saying oh that holy shit that's got to be open data that's public give us that stuff it's just facts but putting that to one side the court held that the fact that that information was accessed and it was clearly private information of the organisation that it was accessed from by an employee who had now gone to a competitor and was about to use it was not a crime under that provision simply because the data itself was held not to be property which just seems astounding to me so where does that leave us in terms of this concept of what happens when we die because as you saw before all of the statutes start referring to property or they refer to shows as an action which are tangible rights which are intangible rights which can be transferred all of those laws when you start looking at cases like this start to fall apart because if a court can say well it's not property in a criminal sense courts what they tend to do is they say well yes it was a criminal case so perhaps not as relevant but it's persuasive in other environments so it might be persuasive in a case where someone is seeking to take control of a deceased's personal data they would argue well the personal data is not property and therefore it doesn't form part of the estate and therefore the executives of the estate no longer have control of it it is in some senses open slather or it could be an argument with one of the platforms themselves around well how do I get access to that information when I collect it back is the metadata the property of the person who is deceased can I as an executive seek that information from the site itself or am I now bound by the terms of use of the site and the law just has to take a backseat because I can't use arguments around unauthorised access or unauthorised use in a criminal sense to threaten Facebook to say give me that information so watch that space in the Supreme Court so basically what we're facing here is a fail the law and the combination of the law with the terms of use of these platforms does not deliver us an answer to what is increasingly or what is a fundamental and increasingly huge problem and I this brings up the themes that you heard from Brewster and from Mia around this problem that we are creating if we don't do something about it in terms of how we make sure that digital information is preserved and kept from a personal point of view certainly from an institutional point of view there is a lot of work being done there but if we can't even decide what the legal principles are when a person dies as to what happens with their digital legacy then we have significant problems in terms of maintaining and ensuring the continuity of that personal community history it's a definite fail for me so maybe there's a legal solution hot off the press November 13, 2014 there's an organisation in the United States which develops because the states have as the name would suggest lots of states and therefore lots of lawmakers they develop uniform pieces of legislation which they then try and persuade each state to adopt they have just come out with the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act and as an acronym usually actually they've been pretty good lately in the states usually they've tried to find real catchy snazzy jazzy acronyms life or patriot or all of those sorts of quite neat acronyms they obviously didn't get that with this one so what this piece of legislation does is take a very small step and I would guess that in the United States with multiple states having all sorts of different perspectives and different aims and different political aspirations that a small step was deemed to be the best step that they could hope to achieve and then hopefully they'll build on that so what this does is simply ensure that if it's adopted in a state it would ensure that of a will or the person who has administration of their state under an intestacy, that's where there's not a will has control so rather than the terms of use of the platforms themselves overriding and saying well these assets don't go into their state this would effectively ensure that that person could interact with the site and that the material or the licence would in theory go through to the estate and could be dealt with by the executor as if it was just another piece of property you know like a bank account or like a power account or whatever the accounts continue to run the estate is responsible for them they either terminate them or they continue them if the power needs to be on in the house or whatever it might be just a very normal situation it's just that we've grown up with social media platforms being able to do what they bloody well like so this is trying to take some of that some of that back so quite a useful thing it's been adopted in one state so far, Delaware, which is probably the home of the most corporate side of the United States registrations it'll be interesting to see if it's adopted elsewhere there are other states who have tried to do sort of piecemeal bits and pieces but this is the first coordinated approach to this issue so that's the legal solution but as I said in the states it'll take a long time in New Zealand the issue has been starting to bubble up we've seen those cases but there's certainly no prospect that I've seen of any law actually coming forward our Privacy Act may change in respect of that provision which says that deceased people don't have it may not the Privacy Act has been completely redrafted so that's going to be a really interesting exercise to see how that comes out and whether this one, this issue will pop up into it as anyone's guess so we need something in the meantime the solution in the meantime is to do what the internet does best which is to hack around the law did I say that? I'm not I am being streamed shit um if my partner's a listening that was just a throwaway comment so yes to hack around these issues so the first thing obviously you've got to do is for those people who didn't have their hands up having done a digital will I've got a little list out the back so just sign up very cheap to do a digital will later with that I might have been thrown a rock or something like that for geo and blocking content from overseas from Netflix so there's that for God's sake if you're talking to people yourselves do deal with your digital assets in your will so that's around thinking about what digital assets do I have what am I going to do with them who's going to have control of them if I want to happen to my Facebook page my Twitter stream my Google, my YouTube account all of those sorts of things pretty basic stuff that we of course all nearer do but let's do that and let's tell everyone else that they should be doing it too it doesn't actually have to be in your will it can just be a letter or a memorandum or wishes to your executives to tell them to do that the second thing I think we should do is really hack around the social media platforms and make sure that you leave the passwords with someone and whether that's all of the passwords or whether it's using something like LastPass one password to control them all and leaving that password with someone else that I have done I've done that so at the very least the person who you are giving the rights to your estate your executor whether that be your spouse or whoever it might be will know that there is some stuff out there that they need to deal with and will have access to the account now yes, I tell you right now that is a breach of just about every single social media platforms terms of use for you to use those passwords and go and use the site as though you were the person who was now deceased completely illegal go for it what's going to happen what's the worst that could happen if you're the executor of the estate then you are in control of much more someone say others might not more important assets than their digital assets if we're prepared as a person in our will to give the person that control over our tangible estate then we should surely be prepared to give them that control over our digital legacy and I would challenge most social media sites to try that one on in a court and see what sympathy they get so legal solutions but better solutions practically and because it's the glam sector I thought I shouldn't close without putting a digital NZ sourced cartoon up and since I've recognised that one should put one's own family member up and grandfather so ask me anything you want we've got about by my account five minutes what are your thoughts about the right to be forgotten that's developed in some European states and where that could be useful here you didn't want to talk did you Evelyn the right to be forgotten yeah that's a big topic we actually have a right to be forgotten in New Zealand not a lot of people know that our privacy act specifies that information can only be held by an agency for so long as necessary for the purpose for which it was collected which is effectively the right to be forgotten expressed in a different way so you can actually go to an agency to any social media platform and say hey I don't want that information kept anymore because the purpose for which I put it up there is no longer relevant whether they will take it down or whatever or whether you can take it down is another question and remembering that the issue when someone has died becomes a lot more complicated but the right to be forgotten is obviously critical to this as well it's there's a lot being written around it it's very European that decision it came out of Spain has a very different way of approaching those sorts of things one thing that I would say and this harks back to my point about my losing my poor posterist blog sad was that these platforms do change and they are commercially driven as much as Google might say they do no evil their concept of evil is quite different from mine and I'm sure quite different from yours so the idea that we should give the power of censorship of the internet because of course that's what a right to be forgotten red large is to a commercially driven organisation is an anathema to me I don't particularly like giving it to the state let alone giving it to an unaccountable non-transparent commercially driven organisation to decide whether or not they are going to take material down based on a group of people in the Philippines so that so that to me is a bad idea and we're already seeing it with Google I'm sure Google is playing the game pretty well by showing the most blatant and egregious types of examples of information which has been taken down but yeah it fits into the mould fits into the whole licence that you're getting from a social media platform was another question Thanks for the presentation Rick those of us here who in our sector who sort of manage collections we're in the remembering and forgetting business so we sort of memorialise people or enable them to be forgotten just through acts of collecting or making accessible but we tend to look at it what we do just through the sort of cultural heritage lens often and not necessarily through the sort of legal or accountability lens the government archives and the state archives often do but I wonder what you thought of our role as a sector for sort of advocating or being activists for the sort of legislative solutions that you were proposing As I say I think that we are in danger of losing this material and if the legality of these situations creates a barrier as I think it does through its uncertainty at the moment then that will only exacerbate the problem so I think that from this sector it's important to agitate for clarity both from your own perspectives in terms of your ability to archive your ability to grant access and so on to the material and also from the individual family members executives point of view in knowing whether they can grant you those rights whether they can deal with the material how they can deal with the material so I think this sector it's not something that individuals will consciously think about you have a better handle on what the issues are going to be if we don't deal with this properly which is why I'm glad to talk to you today because it's an individual problem but it's a community issue TPPA will possibly have on these things I don't see having a huge impact other than TPPA TPPA will make some changes if it's passed in the form that the United States wants to our copyright law so it may make things like notice and takedown slightly more strenuous ironically in that area it may turn the clock around and give New Zealand a right for people whose material has been taken down to issue a counter notice so I don't think it will have a huge impact copyright law at its core the fact that copyright is a property won't change as a result of TPPA We might need to wind up this session but please join me in thanking Rick for his amazing comment.


Underway, a ship's crew has to deal with emergency situations on their own. In Port, however, they can call the base fire department for help. So they run drills together to prepare for that possibility. We had a ship member down in this case. We went into rescue and they seen our capabilities, our medical training and experience we bring in there. And we can help in a situation like this. And having each other back is something everyone can understand. After all, you have to trust, you have to put your lives in somebody else's hands. You know, you kind of have to trust them, people you don't know. So it's definitely, you have to learn how to be better of a team player. Despite the language barriers, the sailors and firefighters who take part in these drills know they can depend on each other when it counts. Petty Officer Nicholas Vickery, Fleet Activities, Sasabo, Japan.


Okay, so it is a pleasure. We should have done this yesterday, but we were so freaking out about the interface to introduce Dr. Amhela Ortega from the Humboldt University in Berlin for her second lecture. Thank you so much. Thank you. Well, let's continue with a little bit of our background over about the billion varieties. It was a little thing that I didn't say yesterday before going into the primarities, and I think Babel mentioned today in the exercise sessions. So, I think I defined it yesterday's map, beta, from the symmetric product of N-symmetric product of a curve. So the parameterizes the effective divisors on a curve. So of course the genus G curve into the peak N group of C. So it is the group of line bundles of degree N on the C. So C is a curve, smooth curve, yeah, so far everything is smooth, of genus G. And so essentially just to take the divisor and consider the associated line bundles, okay. So, let's define the image of this map. Omega VN, the image of this map is a subset in peak N. So essentially it's all line bundles of degree N with non-empty L as well. So let's put a line bundles of line bundles of degree N with non-empty linear system. Yes. So there is effective divisors that define this line. Okay. So you know by Riemann-Roch, Riemann-Roch theorem, for curves, Riemann-Roch theorem for curves, you know that when a G is, when N is bigger than G, this is the whole space. So essentially all the line bundles of degree N have effective divisors for any, at least G. This is Riemann-Roch. And then for a general, and for a general divisor in the image, for general, let's write it L as line bundle, for the general line bundle in peak N of C, for G between one and, okay. And, sorry, in between one and G, we have only one section. That is what you expect. Okay. This is the general. Of course, you have the real letter, low size, when this, and this letter, the low size will come into the picture later. Okay. So that says that beta is birational in this range. So beta is birational with this image, but that's not onto its image in this way. And so, so WN is birational to C. So in general. Okay. So since beta is proper, you can show that it's a proper map. But actually, the image is a closed subarid. So it's a, it's a, it's an irreducible subarid. So irreducible, in particular, in the case, we are very interested in the case where a, when N is G minus one, WG minus one is a divisor in peak G minus one. So this degree plays a bigger role in the whole theory. And this divisor is canonical associated to the core. Okay. And this is what we call the canonical device. We will see why canonical, canonical data divisor, because it's essentially and it's going to be a translation of the core data divisor. So one, one can show that there is a limo though. I'm going to call it. Maybe not a good idea when I use it later. Doesn't matter. In peak G minus one. Yeah, of the of this degree, such that the pullback of data divisor is. So this, this alpha eta is the map that goes to from pick NC into is a translation essentially you can also translate from one degree to the other. Like tensoring, we have L and you tensor with the, the inverse of it is like, okay, something I didn't mention yesterday, but remember pick zero of C is a group. So the trivial line model is the zero element. And the sum is denserization of, of line bones. And this is it corresponds to, to the, to the sum into the Jacobian we have established this is more business. So the sum, the natural addition in the Jacobians translate into tensor of line books. So I'm going from the Jacobians as a sum of points. Okay, this is, this is, maybe I sometimes I just write it and I don't see it. Okay. So it exists and it is you have a data device on the Jacobian you can always translate it from this canonical data device on degree G minus one. But we like very much in minus one because of the following theorem. And this last thing I'm going to say is the Riemann singularity theorem, very famous one. So you have for every line bundle of degree G minus one. Yes, you want to compute the multiplicity of this canonical divisor at the point L is given by the number of sections. Yes. As I mentioned, the general element here will have only one section. Yes. Only one section. And so it means the element is smooth. But as soon you have two or more sections, you have a singularity of the canonical divisor. And it's just a very nice theorem. So you really can read the singularities from, from, from the space of sections. So many things gonna come from this theorem. Now, that was from yesterday. So I want to go. So the second lecture should start here. So let me start to define the prim varieties. So, so today you will see prim varieties. All the way you have already saw them in the morning with the lectures. Actually, I'm very happy that the lecture happens today because you already saw the motivation of the primary so motivations appears in other context, hitching vibration or, or this Shimura varieties and so on. So let's, let's do it slowly. So where the motivation comes from. Okay, let me, let me give you some sort of motivation of prim varieties. The original motivation. Okay, so yesterday we saw that we have, we have a for every, every curve we can associate it up in a principal price of in variety namely Chacovia. So let's, I haven't done it, let's, let's give names to all the modular spaces I'm going to work with. So MG is going to be the modular space of parametrizing all the curves, see a smooth projective curve of Geno C. So do isomorphism. So it's a class of isomorphism of, of course, and I'm going to work also with AG AG is the modular space parametrizing pairs of a billion varieties such that a is really polarized a billion variety and data is its data divisor. So, traditionally, every time that the divisor is principally principle we call it data divisor, although it's not necessarily coming from from a Jacobian or from a chorus just a principally polarized data device. And it has to be done also up to isomorphism. Okay, so isomorphism classes of these pairs. This, okay, I'm, I, I'm not in the position of talking about how to, how to construct MG is so it's a more long, it's a longer story but there is the GIT construction. On the other hand, it's easier to tell just basically what is AG. So, AG is going to be the quotient of the single or per half plane on space in the plane, H, G, modulo the action of the group, the symplectic group G. So let me tell you briefly how it works. Okay, just to do the single or per half plane of dimension G is simply the space of all G time G matrices, it's a complex entries, such that the matrix is a symmetric so the transposition is equals to T, and the imaginary part defines, yes, a billionaire form positive definite. So maybe that reminds you this style that we described yesterday, the case of G equals one, G equals one is just to the upper half planes of the complex numbers. So, yeah, so for each time that we took a complex numbers on this half plane, we could construct a particular. Okay, and the question by the group. It gives you the isometry them isomorphism of the classes. So here acts. Let me put names because it's going to be a sense. See go over half space. And then SPG is the symplectic group of all the matrices, invertible ones size to G to G with rational entries with the property that they preserve the polarizations you want to preserve the polarization so the polarization with so it can be represented by a matrix. So in this case is precept is our principally polarized for the matrix would say this. So this is the identity. G m transpose. So is that should not change the polarization. Okay. So this, this group acts as a symplectic group. And this symplectic group acts on on the signal or perhaps play space by so. So you take, take a matrix of the form a B CT. So each one is a small matrix of the size G times G here. And we act in in a matrix G times G. So you see this is this is complex by by the following formula. So just now it makes sense because a B our matrices G times G, and then do some this blood multiply them with C plus detail and you take the inverse of this matrix. Okay. So it's such a way that every time. Okay, we know every you choose an element tau in HG, you can define naturally a complex source by taking as a basis for for the latest. Sorry, that would be a basis for the latest. Just like we did yesterday for the liquid curve but now in more dimension higher dimension. And, and, and we say to to to such complex terms are isomorphic as principally polarized a billion varieties, if only if they are related by the action of the simple. So it exists a matrix SPG to G cool. Such that you can go from one towel to the other. Okay. That's very explicit. You can work with that. And it's the only thing that I'm going to say. So, so, so every point in the quotient represents an isomorphism class of principally polarized a billion variety of dimension. Okay, so the same construction also works for other polarizations. So but in this case you have to change, you have to change here the polarization. Okay. And then you get another group. But it's a similar construction. So in any case this signal or perhaps space is the universal core of this modular space. And in particular, you can compute compute the dimensions. So the dimension of, of a G, it will be also the dimension of the, the signal space G, and this is just parametrized by symmetric matrices so the symmetric matrices. G time G has a dimension of G plus G times G plus one over two. And this comes from this construction. Okay. See, now, our Jacobian construction allows you to define a map between these two modular spaces, namely, the Dorelli map. So what is the Dorelli map. It's a map that's associated to every curve of G and G goes to HG, it's Jacobian. So you take a class of isomorphism of course, and you take the class of Jacobian together with its data device. Okay. And the Dorelli theorem, and this is, this is the first term, the Dorelli theorem. So all the Dorelli terms you have here, Dorelli type theorem, it comes from this one. Yes. From this Dorelli. So the Dorelli map is injected. It's injected. So with, with other words, that means you can recover the curve from the Jacobian and its polarisation. You need the polarisation also. So with this pair, you can recover the curve. So, so people then start to study them, the modular space HG through curves, and let's see how far can we go. So you make a little table on the dimensions. So the dimension of MG is 3G minus 3, and that's works only for G at least two. For G1, you are in the case of elliptic curves, and we saw elliptic curves is isomorphic to Jacobian. So in this case is an isomorphism of the Dorelli. So here you have G, G plus one over two. G plus two. Well, you can get one, one, one, this is already one case. But for G plus two, this is dimension three, dimension three, three and six. And this is also six. For G plus four, this is dimension nine, and this is dimension 10. For dimension five, this is 12. For dimension, this is 15.  So this grows linearly and this grows quadratically in G. So, my point is 28. My point is when the, with the, with the Dorelli map, you go from, from here to here, right. So in those two cases, they have the same dimension. So you can recover every, so with another words, the Dorelli map says that the general, the general, the principal, the polarizability and variety of dimension and this dimensions three and three and two are, are Jacobians of some curve. Okay. And this is actually generically fine. You cannot say all because because you have things on the boundary for instance the product of elliptic curves. Well, you are actually there is a Jacobian of the product of two curves. So it's not, it's not a smooth curve, right? You have to do something else on the boundary and then we will see what's happening about, but people were very happy with this because you can study AG through curves. So this is, this is, let's say the philosophy. The philosophy is study AG through the geometry. Of course. Okay. So people ask, okay, can, can I get, and this is very successful because you can study the singularities of the data device source and so on. So the question is that now is, can we get older principally polarize a billion varieties using curves. And the answer is, yes. Some more. So for that we are going to introduce them. Bring varieties, bring varieties. Consider first, double covering. Consider a double covering between curves, between smooth curves. Let's call it P or Pi, Pi, C, C, C, T, C, C, such as the genus of C is G and the genus of C, T, T is G, Tila. Okay, so you can compute who it's a formula, you can compute G, Tila in terms of G, in terms of the ramification as well. But for this map induces, induces a map between the Jacobian and Homo, in fact, is a homomorphism of groups called the norm map. The norm map of P between the Jacobians.  Well, I can take a divisor of degree zero upstairs, linear equivalence like the class of the linear equivalence so it defines a line bond of degree zero and take the push forward of this device. So push forward just take the image of these points and make the sum. Right, so the only condition is the coefficients, the sum of the coefficients is zero, they are integers. So in terms of divisors that is very, very easy to define. And it's also clearly an homomorphism of the groups who respect the sum and everything else. It's pi, right? Yes. I mean it was clear, I just wanted to. Thank you. No, no, it's good that you pointed out because yes, I mix up my notation sometimes. Yes, I mix up in my notes too. Okay, it's pi. That's right. So that means the connected component. And they can, okay, they can look ahead. Several, several components, and one component contains the neutral element of the zero, and this is going to be my brain variety. Okay, so let's define the prevariety. We define the prevariety associated to the cover of pi. By taking the kernel of the normal map. And take the connected component containing the zero. So this is not really a subgroup of the Jacobian C tilde. Yeah, which is, this is a subvariety also, which is a subvariety subgroup also. So, of dimension. Well, just the dimension. Let's call this P. And you want to buy here because it's associated to the morphism. The dimension is the difference of the dimensions. Right. Moreover, it comes with a polarization. We can restrict the data divisor, the principal polarization to this this variety. So it carries a natural polarization, namely just take principal polarization C tilde and restrict it to me. Okay. Now, the question is, when did I get a principal polarization. And actually this is one of the of the exercises, I think it's the last exercise of the list. I will tell you the answer, but you can, you can look at the, how do you prove that. So there is a nice hearing by, by mom for. So the paper of mom for I am referring to is a social deposed it you can have a look as well, which says that the restriction. Okay. The restriction data tilde restricted to P to the pream is algebraic equivalent to twice a principal polarity principal polarization with principal. Let me put here. algebraic equivalence. If only it is. Let's put it here. Two cases happen. P is a tad or. Or P is ramified in exactly two points. Okay. You see, let's do some observations. So first of all, this definition I gave, I started by simplicity just by simplicity. I started with a double cover. But there is nothing that doesn't mean that the cover has to be degree to it could be any degree. And you can still define the normal map. So I should put the name, the normal map. And you can still get the kernel of the normal map as a sub variety ability as a variety. The, the thing is that. So okay, first of all, the definition also holds for D bigger than two to the degree, the degree of the map, bigger than two. Okay, not only the coverings. And if you consider all the possible degree, the only cases where you obtain a principal polarization are these two. So for the bigger than three, there are, there are only two other cases, two other cases where the restriction induces a principal polarization. And those are the following one is. Yes, this is P is the degree three. So piece is triple, I sorry, triple, cyclically covering over a genius to curve. So in this case, the covering upstairs is a genius for. And that's associated bring varieties of dimension to, and there is another little case. Be is any, any, any, any final map, any degree, any final map. So any degree, but yet now the curve of stairs is genius to and downstairs is one. Yeah. So again for Riemann, Riemann, always formula. You can it allows any, any D, any D is allowed. But it's not so interesting because, because of the dimension the plane variety will have in an electric curve. So this case is less interesting. But this is possible. Yes. It's actually not psyche, the first. Non-cyclic, yes. Non-cyclic. For cyclic, it's not the case. That's right. Thank you. I am thinking of the other. Yes, I was working on cyclic and then, okay, it's non-cyclic. That's right. Okay, so, and that's all. So you cannot get anything principal, apart from what we move forward. Let me pick, alternatively, another way of looking at the plane, just to you can start with with a curve with an evolution and define, define the curve C as the quotient of the evolution and define. So this what they said the normal map is also equivalent to define the pre-map as the image. Okay, we have an evolution. So the evolution, every time you have an automorphism of the curve, the covering, that induces an endomorphism of the Jacobian. And you can, you can take the pullback of line moments through this, this element. So then you take the identity map in the Jacobian minus the induced evolution on the normal system. And this is, this is also the primary. Okay. And one can check that these two definitions are. So, so we can think of the prime variety is the Utah, Utah and the invariant part, part of the Jacobian upstairs. Okay, the invariant part is the pullback of, if this is spy, you can, you always have the pullback map between, so now it is from downstairs to upstairs. Yeah, so just take any line bond of degree zero, the pullback is a line bond of degree zero on C tilde. And in the case of etal coverings, so when pi is etal, this, this has a kernel. So the kernel of pi is, is, is generated by, I call it the game eta, eta is a two torsion point. So line bond is just the square is three. Okay. In any case, in any case, the pullback of the Jacobian is the Utah invariant part of this and invariant part, because actually you can see it as the as it gets the image from one plus Utah, so the tax, Utah, Utah acts here, trivially. And this, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the orthogonal to the, to the pullback of the Jacobian downstairs. Actually, it's more is complimentary. So we have an isogenic. You have always an isogenic. We define as isogenic yesterday. From the product, so you take the invariant part times the anti invariant part. And you saw, it's just to the song. So both, both components are inside of the Jacobian. So you can, you can solve the elements. And this is an isogenic, because both sides have the same dimension. And it's subjective. Okay. Good. Okay, let's stop a little bit here. You have any questions? Okay, Angela, this last, so it can be covering, right? Which one? The last one. Yes, the last map here is subjective. So when I say isogenic, you know, maybe I should recall here as so many means is subjective. Plus, both are the same dimension. So in particular, the kernel is fine. It's a fine. Okay. Now, from now, let's assume that we are in the tall case. In the tall case. We have a kernel. When, when it's not the title, the kernel, the pullback is injective is an embedding. Yes, but let's assume. This is the title. So when I said the title, I asked, is it on ramified covering. And in this case, one can show that the kernel of the normal map. It has two components. Our prem, maybe I should be zero, but this my prem and another component. So this one. This one's contains the zero and not the other. So this, yeah, this one is in an actual a million two variety. So to irreducible to connect with complex. Okay. And one way of distinguishing there's a way of distinguishing two components, but one way is, you can see P. One prem. So let me call P of P, P of pi as the image. As I said, of this endomorphism, but of the pixel. And the other. You can see as the image of this endomorphism, but not of the pixel, but the big one. Because I am using. Okay, so this one, again, this was natural. The Jacobian. And this, this big one is isomorphic. You see, all this big G, et cetera. They are isomorphisms to the Jacobians are so morphic. The difference is that the Jacobian has zero and not the others. But when you, when you, when you take a line bundle of degree one, and so let's just to make it clear what to see. I have one Yota and take a line bundle of degree one, you know, C tilde. This is just to take L that means so in notation of line bundles is L tensor pull back of the Yota inverse. So the new line bundle will have now degree zero. So it is, it is, it lies in, in, in, in the Jacobian. Okay, but it's the other component. Okay, this is one way of these things. And as I said, as I said, when the C tilde, you have a kernel. It comes always with this two torsion point in the top. And in the other sense around is also true. So, okay, let me, let me, let me now define a one for all what is the two torsion point. So this is a notation for the elements eta in the Jacobian such that twice this is eta. So, you see, I see it as a line bundle is trivial. Or if you prefer, let me see, let's put the peak zero. Yeah, make it go. So this is a small Jacobian. And when you put in the Jacobian, actually stood this data is zero. This is the same under this identification. So this is the two torsion points points. Similar, you can define n torsion points. This is similar to the n torsion points. But I wouldn't need to know mostly since you just put here is that you need to take some there and roots of the trivial condom. There are roots. And this is a finite subgroup. And we know the cardinality. So this subgroup will have two to the g elements. Okay, and you can count that because you can look at the lattice the lattice, those points will be half of the lattice in any direction. So you can count how many points you have. Okay. Okay, so every time. So every time you have a curve together with the two torsion point, no trivial one. So I don't want to see one. You can associate to that. And it will cover the covering the following way. So system. So you have an isomorphism. And this is almost in those. The sum of these two line bundles with the with an OC algebra structure or a ring structure we need with ring structure. Okay, so this is so I can I can multiply elements on OC with here with elements of C of clear is clear or we see me data, and I can multiply multiply elements at the square data via this isomorphism. So I have a I have a ring structure in this in this shift. So, you actually the city that is defined as the spectrum of this ring. And so, and it also has an injection of OC here of the driveline bundle. So that induces a projection of the spectrum. Yeah. See, and this is our C. So this is by. This is a way of seeing a. Okay. So let me define. We think with it with this this equivalence in mind. Let's define. Another modular space, RG, the isomorphism classes of their C data such that C is this is a smooth curve of GNG and data is to torsion point minus zero. So I don't want the trivial, the zero or the trivial bundle because it leave a bundle will define something that is disconnected. Yeah, so, yeah, when I say no what you get is to twice the copy of C and this is not. Yeah, I want us a connected curve right they don't want this one this case. So this this is the space. This is moduli space. Which parameter I see. Tracing. It doesn't work. Coverings. And the. Okay, so you have naturally. You have naturally a map from RG to FG is the forgetful map. And so you take this pair you forget the torsion point. And as I mentioned, this is of the grid to do G minus one. It's fine. It's fine. Okay. Yes. You have to take a five minutes break. Oh, no. Thank you. Thank you for telling me. Okay. Then let's stop here. I think it's a moment to stop. Yes. Yes. Forget it. In your writing. Yes. Thank you. Yes. That is a sign that I needed the break. Thank you. Yes. Okay. We forget it. So okay. I leave you the thing here for five minutes.


Mike fly on tiktok says they meditate for Every morning for one hour and then they read for one to two hours. Is that a bad thing? now my opinion on this is Is based on my experience obviously I haven't looked into the actual science behind You know the diminishing returns that might happen Let's say if you meditate for six hours a day You might get a bit more benefit compared to meditating for two hours a day or one hour or even half an hour But my guess is that there will be kind of like diminishing returns and this is the case with a lot of different things a lot of healthy habits Exercises a good example sleep is another example, right?  It actually makes you lethargic in it. It's bad for you So with meditation My opinion is that you should be meditating at least once a day Ideally in the morning like as soon as you wake up and there's a couple of reasons why you might want to do it in the morning Compared to let's say another time in the day and I'll get onto those in a second but you want to consider that with habits especially positive habits when you're trying to build them up and meditation is a prime example of that it's very easy to kind of Start doing something start meditating every day and then you after a week or so you stop you give up And this is the case with a lot of positive habits. You'll find that because they're how can I say this? They're not as Instantly rewarding as let's say a negative habit something that will give you instant gratification An instant hit a dopamine. Let's say because they're not as rewarding in that sense They can be hard to build up the habit So what I'm trying to say is I would much rather suggest that you meditate for two minutes a day Then for one hour a day if you're not going to stick to it because the chances are if you and I don't know how long You know how long you've been meditating for an hour a day But if you're kind of like a beginner and you come in and start meditating for an hour a day thinking like yeah I'm just gonna do it. I'm gonna meditate for this time That's great But the chances are less likely that you'll stick with it because it's such a long time And so what happens is you end up missing it completely So what I would recommend and this is what this is what I kind of suggest to people who messaged saying like how do I Get started meditating literally just set a time on your phone for 60 seconds Right and just do that just meditate for 60 seconds a day So one minute a day everyone can do that right everyone can meditate for 60 seconds It's a very small length of time But what happens is it builds up the habit so that after let's say two weeks have gone by two months have Gone by it's very easy to stick to doing that you can always find 60 seconds to meditate and You build up the habit so it becomes a lot easier to do it compared to let's say somebody who they get super excited about meditation They learn how important it is they learn about the benefits They they kind of figure out in there in their mind that okay meditation is something I should be doing And they go all in and they say right I'm gonna meditate for an hour a day or two hours a day You know and some people do that but what happens is then after a week or so they fall off They stop doing that and this has always been the case like Even in my experience as well. I've had to kind of learn the best way of doing this with my morning routines I used to have an insanely long morning routine which would take two or three hours to complete and it would Involve like doing lots of loads loads of different things meditating for half an hour You know walking outside going and exercising Coming back then doing like an advanced journaling series and then learning Spanish and then do all of these things When really what I needed to do is bring down the time that it takes me to do the morning routine So that I'm more likely to stick with it every single day because the key with well any any positive habit really meditation Especially is that you do it every day So it's far better to do it for two minutes a day every day for six months than for one hour a day every day for a week So I hope that kind of makes sense. I hope that answers your question Mike or Mike fly on tiktok. All right Mike fly says they've been meditating for six months. That's a long time. Keep it up


हम वहभीßer ग� trial सा�了 वहभीर, हम घररमप housed inên और रहीं हा, वस वहया पल उज़़ा कर म।क, भाई और enjoyment of Wahegurt Rashti by the Guru PICHEERING, on the day, wherever those odors have come, that disturbance that r AIDS targets are๋ at this time. That disturbance is against that War तर्ततरे हैं, वtain बार बलाक अ लिग, ललिग, तर्तत एक. ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ ौ


But then you have to experiment. You have to keep track of what you're doing and you have to keep track of what is important to you that you want. And you have to compare what you're doing and what you're getting out of it. And if you're not getting what you want out of it, you have to change something. If you understand the principles, you can kind of identify, okay, maybe I'm not doing this right. Maybe I'm not training hard enough. Maybe I'm doing too much and I need to cut back. Maybe I need a little bit more recovery. But what you need to do to determine whether or not what you are doing is going to work in the long run and whether or not you need to change something is to track these things, make small changes, one variable at a time so that you know what is responsible for a change. If the result improves, then you know you're moving in the right direction. If not, then you make a change and you go another way. But this is what's necessary to answer most people's questions about what exercises. How many reps, how often? I don't know. Depends on how your body responds to exercise and it depends on how well you're doing these things in the gym. But you have to, again, look at it from a standpoint, not of programs. You're never doing a program. You are following a set of principles and the application of those principles has to be flexible. Nothing is set in stone. Everything is a starting point from which to make adjustments based on how your body is responding to exercise. You literally have to treat it like a lifelong experiment. Keep track of what you're doing. Keep track of the outcome that you're after. Make changes, note the difference. If it's moving you closer to where you wanna be, you're moving in the right direction. If not, you moved in the wrong direction, you gotta move it the other way. So just to recap, you have to train intensely. If you're not pushing yourself as hard as you can stomach during your workouts, you are not going to get the best results that you can. If you are training intensely enough, then you need to keep your workouts relatively brief. I can give you a starting point, but it would have to be adjusted. Most people, minimally, you need to work all your muscle groups. You don't wanna ignore your legs or even smaller muscle groups like neck and calves and forearms. Minimally, you need to do at least one exercise for every major muscle group. But how much you do during a workout depends on what you can tolerate and recover from. Maybe you'll do all of them in a workout. Maybe you'll do two different exercises for a muscle group in a workout. Or maybe you'll split it up over several. You have to work everything, that's a minimal. You don't have to do it all in the same workout, but you don't wanna ignore any muscle groups. And you have to get enough rest in between workouts. Again, how much? I can give you a starting point, but what works well for you might be very different. On average, most people starting out don't train very hard. It takes a while for some people to learn it, to train intensely. So when you're starting out, you can train more. You can do three, four workouts a week, but eventually, once you learn to train intensely enough, you're gonna have to give yourself at least a day in between. And some people actually do better with even more rest time in between. Unfortunately for some people, they're way off on the opposite end of the bell curve. And they might have to do as little as five or six exercises once a week or less because they just have really crappy genetics for being able to tolerate and recover from exercise. Again, there's no program though. There is a set of principles, and if you want the best possible results, you can't just follow a specific thing without looking at how your body's responding and continuing to make adjustments to move the results closer to what you wanna get out of it.


This paper provides an introduction to electromagnetically induced transparency, EIT, which is a technique used to manipulate light waves through the use of magnetic fields. It explains the basic principles behind EIT, including its effects on optical absorption and dispersion, as well as the impact of thermal motion on these parameters. The paper also discusses the trade-offs between different experimental setups and the potential applications of EIT. This article was authored by Rand Finkelstein, Samir Bali, Ofer Firstenberg, and others.


Do you hear that? That's a bad tire. Today's road check tip is to remind you that this year's emphasis is on tires, wheels, rims, and hubs. Check for air leaks, cracks, and damage. Check back again tomorrow for a road check tip.


Thank you very much and again, thank you very much for the honour of being here and especially to Ms Indira Jaisingh who is an inspiration to us all, always, but again has taken the leadership at a very crucial point in the history of our country. I'm following a most inspiring speech, missed by Mr Bhattacharya and a most informative speech by Mr Chibber and so I have a very tough act to follow. I'll just, and time is very short so I'll just make a couple of points. First I think the first point, I was just reading the other day actually by coincidence a 2018 Vanderbilt Law Review interesting article based on extensive research of the evolution of judicial independence and various safeguards for judicial independence in the United States and with lots of facts, historical facts, the conclusion that the article reaches is that judicial independence and safeguards similar to judicial independence in the judiciary are political constructions created by democratic movements in the United States. So they asked the question why 75 years ago, even 50 years ago, it was not unthinkable for leading politicians in the United States to say we want to influence judges, we want to walk into judges and tell them what to decide, we want to pack the benches, but today even Trump cannot say that in public. So how did that change come about? It is not because of laws written in the Constitution, but because of democratic movements, political movements that changed the public awareness and public opinions and created safeguards for the judiciary. So what this article argues is that judicial independence is actually a political construction of political movements. And so perhaps a title, this is a wonderful title, but if you flip this around, what we should really be discussing is what are the implications for judicial independence from democracy.  I went these four heroes and I think I would put one as the hero, heroist of them all. Justice H. R. Khanna level sort of commitment to principle where he put here, he has put online knowingly the possibility of becoming Chief Justice of India, Justice Gogoi. I also agree that I know some of them, Justice Lokul was one year junior to me at the Campus Law Center in Delhi, I know him from those days. And Justice Joseph is from my state in Kerala, we all know him extremely well. Justice Gogoi, of course, and Justice Chalamesh were also all of them, people of exceptional integrity and exceptional experience and exceptional insight and exceptional competence, not just integrity, but competence as well. When the four of them come together, not people who seek publicity, not people who sought the spotlight, and deliver an apocalyptic message to us that judicial independence has been compromised, that democracy is in danger and most importantly that they, the senior most judges of the country are helpless and they appeal to the people to save the nation. I think we may have been living and Ms. Jai Singh was on behalf of all of us, a witness to the event and even comparable to the Last Supper, a very dire warning that what is weakened is not judicial independence, but democracy is dying in this country. And it is because democracy is dying in this country that judicial independence has become feeble, not the other way around. And yes, many of us as lawyers and law academics and judges often claim that it is the judiciary that protects democracy. The truth is exactly the opposite. It is democracy that has created even the idea of a judiciary. And what a brilliant idea to spin off from the monarch, simply the power of adjudication, the power to punish, the power to determine rights and liabilities, spin it off, peel it off from the monarch, put it in the hands of some courtiers of the monarch initially, and gradually take that forward, build many constraints, many limits on power, many constraints on power, and democratize the judicial function, which was once part of the monarchy. It's a great triumph of common people and their struggles to establish democracy. And so what we witnessed on January 18th, I think an event of extraordinary significance, which may or may not have inspired another event that took place in Manila, Mr. Chibber must know about it, where there is a huge controversy about the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And several sitting judges came out in public, including several sitting Supreme Court judges and asked for her to resign. And I wonder whether they were inspired by the January 12th, 2018 press conference in India. Having, I think, a worldwide effect. So the only point I want to make in this limited time is that we must understand that the world has seen a long struggle to democratize what we today call judicial power, which was once an arbitrary power vested in the monarch indistinguishable from any other power. In other countries in the world, and there's no time to go much further into this, they not only develop the idea of an independent judiciary, but they also shaped and molded the ideas of judicial independence and created the idea of the rule of law and linked these two to democracy. And even more recently, as Anand and Ms. Jai Singh and Mr. Anand Grover and Ms. Brinda Grover here know extremely well. They have consciously, especially over the last 20 or 25 years, very deliberately and successfully linked the idea of rule of law and judicial independence beyond mere formality to bring into it a core of commitment to fundamental rights. And so today, starting from Dawkin, they've argued that the rule of law is not simply a formal process. At the heart of it is an uncompromising commitment, a non-negotiable commitment to the idea of equality and freedom and democracy. So we have seen how democracy has created the judicial power, has molded its content, shaped its content to actually safeguard human freedom and human equality at the core. And in the process, they have also over the last maybe 200 years democratized the judiciary also, not only created the judiciary, but democratized it through things like the jury system. Lord Devlin, for example, said in the context of the United Kingdom, that if a dictator took over power in England, not a hypothetical situation in our country anymore, but if a dictator took over power in England, the first thing he would do would be to shut down parliament. That's not a necessary thing we have to worry about. It's already shut down in our country. The second thing that the dictator would do is to shut down the jury system because he said the jury system is the lamp that tells us that freedom is alive, that a common people have the sovereign power once exercised by the monarch to punish. So they democratized it through the jury system. They democratized the way in which judges are selected. Today a judge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is selected on the basis of an application. Those who apply are called to an interview. They are interviewed and after the interview they have to write a written test. Then they have to do a moot court and then there are appointed Supreme Court judges. We know the system of the United States because they realize that it matters to the country who you put in these high offices. I think today if it is true that judicial independence is compromised, there is no doubt that this is the single biggest security threat to this country. It is shocking that two months after the senior most judges of this country have said and identified what is the biggest security threat to this country through which any enemy of India if there are enemies of India can capture policy making and law making in this country and the executive doesn't react, the judiciary doesn't react and there is no reaction from the media. Everyone ignores it and that shows that the other so-called security threats they put before us are completely fake security threats because they are refusing to respond to a genuine security threat in this country and therefore what I am suggesting the point I want to make is that the democratic movements in this country have become weak. The success that other countries have had to democratize their judiciary has not succeeded in our country. We know for many years not now that all is not well with the judiciary but we have not found a way to solve those problems and I think what we should celebrate is that these four judges have put before us a new instrument to reform the judiciary and that new instrument is to use the power of democracy as an instrument of judicial reform and I will just conclude in a minute by this example that just a few days before January 18th in the latter part of December a woman judge in the UK filed a case before the employment, what happened in December was a Court of Appeals decision in the UK but a few months before that a woman judge in the UK filed a petition before the employment tribunal claiming protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act because she had criticized the judiciary in writing openly and faced retaliation from senior judges and some senior judges who examined what she had said said that her attack was a very fundamental attack on the judiciary and she felt she had been retaliated against and she went to the employment tribunal and she said I want protection as a whistleblower. She was a district judge appointed under warrant signed by the Queen after this reform so comparable to a High Court and Supreme Court judge. So the employment tribunal said you are not a worker, you are holding office under the terms of appointment of the Queen, you are not a worker and therefore you are not entitled to protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act. She appealed to the Court of Appeals and in the Court of Appeals in December a few days before these judges spoke out accepted that she is a whistleblower but not entitled to protection under the Employment Tribunal Act because she is not a worker, she is a judge appointed by the Queen but she is entitled under the terms of her appointment as a judge she is entitled to whistleblower protection including compensation for retaliation. So I think that's why I was discussing with Ms. Jasing, we must recognize that these four judges have set a new standard for whistleblower protection in our country. They have spoken openly and no whistleblower in this country in any office in any function today can receive lesser protection and lesser space for internal criticism than these judges have and I think the power of insiders speaking out is an extremely powerful instrument for democracy and I feel that what we should do now is to use this opportunity, this opening of democratization, democratic speech by insiders using whistleblower rights as an important opportunity to start a campaign to democratize the judiciary and apply democratic principles in the judiciary selection process. This is a controversial thing to say but I am in favor of introducing the jury system into this country with safeguards, we discuss how it happens but we have to bring the voice, democracy means Kratos power is in the hands of the people, we have to bring the voice and power of common people into the judicial system at different levels and then I think we would have taken full advantage of this development of which we witnessed on January 18th and I think we would be able to strengthen, use democracy to strengthen the judiciary and through that to safeguard our democracy as well, thank you very much.