Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We're faced with an unprecedented situation in this country today. There are three issues, any one of which could destroy our nation. One is the economic situation we find ourselves in. The second is the energy crisis. And the third is the extent to which this administration has eroded our margin of safety and allowed our defensive capability to decline in this country to the point that we are in danger and no longer can say, we are second to none. We are second to one, the Soviet Union. It's only a few days now in this campaign. And I'm going to focus each day, as long as these days remain, on the options that will be presented to the American people. And one of the most critical of these will be Jimmy Carter's demonstrated inability to govern our nation. At home and abroad, the lack of leadership, speaking bluntly, brings up the question of whether he is competent to handle the job. Now let me say one thing. I know in this place, and speaking to this audience, I would have to be addressing not just fellow Republicans, but Democrats and independents as well. And I hope that's true, because number one, we can't change the course we're on without you. You are welcome. We need your help and support in a crusade to change the direction of this country. All across the country, I've found the people yearning for hope. From the outset of this administration, the nation is watched as the important issues of the day fall into the hands of people whose motives are certainly not in question, but whose fundamental understanding of how to lead America is woefully inadequate. Without question, on the domestic policies confronting us, their record of achievement is thin, but the trail of broken promises and unkept commitments is very wide indeed. There has been no period when the question of America's energy requirements has been of such high importance. We are prisoners of OPEC, reduced to doing their bidding, unable to count on real strategic security, while all the time the disruptions in our economy and to individual citizens have been massive. Mr. Carter, most of his energy program, we've been beset by high prices, periodic shortages, no long-range strategy, and a department of energy that siphons off more than $10 billion a year, and it has yet to produce a single quart of oil. We know that this government has sequestered, taken out of circulation and put aside hundreds of millions of acres of public lands that once were open to multiple use, to grazing, to finding of minerals, to finding of energy sources. We know that the outer continental shelf lies largely unleashed with only about 2% of it now drilled and producing oil and natural gas. The truth of the matter is we're energy rich. The answer to our energy problem, I believe, is to take the authority away from government and put it back in the hands of those who are experts in the field of energy in his economic program, the broken promises there and the results. First of all, there was his promise when he saw that inflation was 4.8% at the end of the Ford administration, that that was disgraceful, and he was going to do something about it. And he did. It is now running at 12.7%. And then there was unemployment. He promised he would bring it down to within 4%. And today, there are 8 million Americans out of work, and 2 million of them lost their jobs within the last few months. Then there was the matter of taxes. And I recall his saying that our tax system was a disgrace, and something had to be done about it. And so he has, in these four years, doubled the taxes paid by the American people. It amounts to an added $5,000 a year burden for the average American family of four. The taxes, he promised that he would never impose taxes on the working, the middle class of America. And he has imposed the biggest single tax increase in our nation's history. And his tax program that has doubled so far will double again in the next five years. And by 1985, if his policies are continued, the tax burden on the American people for the federal government alone will be in excess of $1 trillion. And then he was going to streamline the government. And he was going to make the government smaller. He has increased government spending at the federal level by 58%. He has run up, in these four years, the biggest four-year run of budget deficits of any president in our history. And in the year of 1980, the fiscal year that ended on the first day of this month, he ran up the single biggest deficit in our nation's history. And if you add in the off-budget items, the total debt is near $80 billion for that one year. Not too many years ago, $80 billion was the total cost of the United States government. Now $80 billion is the annual interest that we pay on the debt. I have been touring many areas of this country. And you have escaped some of this so far. But the ripple effect will catch up. I've been touring the areas where there is great unemployment. Detroit, Michigan, where it is 18%, for minorities, it is 56% in that city. Kokomo, Indiana, it's 20%. Flint, Michigan, it's 25%. These are the figures of the Great Depression of the 1930s. I have talked to the unemployed. I stood in the South Bronx. I stood there for the very reason that in 1977 Jimmy Carter had stood on that same spot. You would have to see the South Bronx in the heart of New York to believe it. There are rows and rows of empty buildings, gaunt structures with the windows broken out, standing empty and deserted. On one of them nearby was painted unkept promises. On another was painted despair. And then there are blocks and blocks that have been leveled by the bulldozer just covered with brick and rubble. But they just stretch as empty blocks like a bombed out city. And when I turned to leave, I found myself facing a middle-aged man, black, not antagonistic. But he said, do me, and with such a longing in his voice, he said, can you tell me? Do I have reason to hope? Can I hope that one day I can again provide for my family, take care of my children? How you bled, wanting to give him an instant answer and say, yes, it can be solved immediately. No, it can't be, but it can be solved. Yes, there is reason for hope in this country. This country has everything that it always had before except the leadership in Washington that this country requires. I stood in Youngstown, Ohio in the great empty shell of what had been a steel mill not too long ago. 13,000 men unemployed. The steel mill is closed. This isn't a temporary layoff. In Detroit, I met in a little backyard. A man had invited me to come there to meet some of his neighbors, all of whom were unemployed, steel workers, automobile workers, and some from the construction industry because people don't buy houses when interest rates are at 14% and 15%. This man had invited in a dozen neighbors, as I say.  They brought their families. A young man with his wife, his children. And you hear of the shattered dreams. You hear of the hopes that have gone glimmering and the things that had been planned. And now the end question, what do we do? And moved by that, as I'm sure anyone would be, I went out and referred to that publicly as a depression. And the president couldn't wait. On the same day he called in the press to say this proves his ignorance, this is a recession. Well, now I know that the economists have drawn a kind of a fuzzy line and on one side's recession and on the other side is depression. But anyway, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the human misery that I had seen. The president was hiding behind a dictionary. Well, if it's a definition he wants, I have one for him.  A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery will be when Jimmy Carter loses his. And Jimmy became president, or while he was a candidate, if you remember, he coined or invented a new thing called the Misery Index. This you got by adding unemployment, the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation. And in Jerry Ford's case, it came to 12 and a half. And then he said, no president with that kind of a misery index has the right to seek reelection to the presidency. Well, today his misery index is above 20%. And since he hasn't seen fit to follow through with the rest of his statement, maybe we can do that for him on November 4th. He has introduced five new economic programs in these four years. You would think that someone else had been in charge for the last three and a half years or so. But at the same time, he has found it necessary to find a reason for inflation. He blamed OPEC, then he blamed the Federal Reserve System once, not too long ago. Then he blamed the American people, he said that we were suffering from a malaise and we weren't productive enough. And then he took another crack at the American people and said that we had inflation because you and I were living too well. Well, you and I living too well is not the cause of inflation. We have inflation because government is living too well. Well, I too have introduced an economic program. And my economic program, I didn't just spin off the top of my head for it to be a campaign speech. We've worked for long, hard weeks with some of the best and the most noted economists in this country, with men who are not only economists but have had great experience in government, men like Arthur Burns, once the head of the Federal Reserve, George Schultz, former secretary of the treasury, Bill Simon, a former secretary of the treasury, Alan Greenspan and others. Now, my own plan is based in a combination of fiscal responsibility, the first priority, the Federal Reserve system, being to maintain the stability of the dollar. It is based on recognizing that business and industry in the United States are hamstrung by literally tens of thousands of unnecessary regulations that have added $130 billion to the cost of production in America and have not done one thing to improve productivity in America. And many of them should be eliminated. The next step is a planned program of reducing the cost of government. And we have a task force working on where we will find these areas to cut. And the president says this would mean the elimination of $130 billion worth of programs it wouldn't mean anything of the kind. It means cutting out fat and extravagance that are built in to the federal government. There is enough fat in that government today that if you rendered it and made soap you could wash the world. But as hardly, what we're talking about is hardly a Med-Ax approach. We're talking about a 2% cut in 1981. That's two cents out of every one of the $633 billion in the budget. Anyone should be able to do that. And I know it can be done because we did it in California. The next year you add another 2%, now it's four and then one for five and the next year six and the next year seven. Now that is a modest goal and even our economists who have studied this program tell us that we're modest but we prefer to do it that way. Just between you and me I think we can knock off as much as 10% or more. But we also can balance the budget by 1983 if not before and that is the biggest step in eliminating inflation putting government back within its means. Now the other step calls for tax reform. Accelerated depreciation for business and industry to permit business and industry in this country to once again put in modern plant and equipment and technology so we can compete with Japan and West Germany and the other industrial nations. Do you remember when they used to promise us two automobiles in every garage? Well we finally got them. They're both Japanese and they're both out of gas. Then the next step in our tax program is a 10% cut in the income tax across the board for everyone. Wait a minute, I have an encore. That's 10% in 1981, another 10% in 1982 and a third 10% in 1983. Now the president says that's irresponsible. Well I will admit to being irresponsible if he'll admit to being responsible. He says it will be highly inflationary. Why is it inflationary if you keep more of your earnings and spend it the way you want and it isn't inflationary if he takes it from you and spends it the way he wants. Now let me make one confession. I will confess that I have built into my program a spending program also. And it's one that I mentioned earlier. It is absolutely essential that we increase our spending for national defense if we're to preserve the peace. This too has been approved by the economists as well within reach. Remember, my tax cuts are not going to reduce the government to getting less money than it is presently getting. I am just reducing the increase that is built into the tax structure by this administration. The government will continue to expand and grow. The government will continue to have more money to meet the needs of expansion as we go on. But the people of this country will also have more money for the things that they want and that they need. So I believe in the plan, but now with regard to defensive spending, let me make this an absolute fact. The goal is world peace. That must be our prime responsibility. We are the leader of the free world whether we want to be or not. And therefore we are the only ones that can preserve the peace. And to do that, we must have strength. Now the president claims that while we're superior, he has canceled the B-1, he delayed the M-Max, he delayed the cruise missile, the neutron warhead, the Trident submarine and a number of other weapons closed down the Minuteman assembly line. And as I said earlier, we are not number one. We have opened a dangerous window of vulnerability to the Soviet Union. There is their building of arms goes up and ours continues to decline. With great percentage of our aircraft that on any given day can't fly for lack of spare parts or maintenance, with ships that can't sail from our Navy out of port because they don't have the crew to sail them, with 70% of the enlistees in the volunteer army leaving at the end of the first term and a high percentage of them not even completing that term, we're 70,000 short in non-commissioned officers. The president has asked for advanced registration for the draft. He says that he won't call a draft. I'm pleased with that because I don't believe in a peacetime draft. But our volunteer army, we wouldn't have the non-commissioned officers and the men to train a drafty army if we had to call them up in an emergency. I happen also to be opposed to his advanced registration for the draft. He said that that was to send a message to the Soviet Union, but he's sending it by way of the post office. But I'll tell you what I do think is the answer. I think, first of all, the rebuilding of an active reserve which has been allowed to deteriorate to where we have an active reserve that can be called up an emergency. And then I believe also in the volunteer military, if, if we will stop being as foolish as we've been to expect a young man to work a hundred hours a week for months out on duty in the Pacific, on a carrier and the Indian Ocean, a hundred hours a week for a salary that is less than he could get for working 40 hours a week at a menial job back home. What we really need, what we really need is to institute a pay scale and benefits as we would in the private sector that are commensurate with the sacrifice we're asking of the young men and women in uniform and we'll have a volunteer military that works. You know, there's a saying that Chicago is a city with big shoulders. That's a saying about it. Now, let the United States once again be a nation with big shoulders. Shoulders to bear the kind of historic responsibility out of which our destiny was born more than 200 years ago. What is it that we as Americans really want? It isn't power. If we only wanted power, we long ago could have dominated the world. It isn't world leadership as an end in itself. We've had world leadership thrust upon us by events. We've never pursued it. In my view, what we want is so simple, so elementary that it's often overlooked. We want to live in freedom and in peace to see our children. To see our children have at least the opportunities that we had for advancement and preferably even better opportunities than we had. We want to worship God in our own way, to lead our own lives, take care of our families, live in our own style in our own community without hurting anyone or anyone hurting us. And yes, we want to bring the blessings of peace and progress and freedom to others. I'm talking about the very essence of what it is to be an American. We're different. We have always been different. We have created with God's help and our sweat and pain and work. We've created something that never before has existed on the face of the earth. A nation where the vast majority of people are free from material want, free to worship and think in their own way. The immigrants who have come to this country in our own time and those who came earlier and today, we look upon as our parents or our grandparents or great-great-grandparents. They brought us a gift of work and a gift of faith. And what they produced through work was always there to be used for charitable and brotherly works of faith. All we have, all we've ever built, all the hopes and dreams that we want to come to pass, all this is dependent on education in freedom. And so a more basic answer to the question I asked is, what is it that America really wants? It's to grow, to learn, to develop our talents in freedom. Freedom is the only true possession that Americans have. A signer of the Declaration of Independence said it isn't important that we leave wealth to our children. It is important that we leave them liberty. I can think of no greater reward for any president of the United States than that he kept his country at peace and the people of his country at work, that he helped to strengthen the family and preserve the freedoms of his people, that he did his part to replace tension with confidence, despair with hope, anger with love and spiritual resolution or desolation, I should say, with a new faith in ourselves, in our country and in the God who has looked over our fortunes these many years of our glory. I would like to have your help and support, not because I think I personally can bring all these things about, but because I have faith in the people of this country and in the greatness of the people of this country and the leadership that I envision in Washington, if I should have enough of your support, would be to take the lead in getting government off the backs of the people of the United States and turning you loose to do what you can do so well. Thank you very much. Thank you.


What's happening guys? It's Shane here. Very quick video for you guys today. Basically what I'm going to be talking about is which colleges you need to avoid. And with that being said, right after you gently tap the like button, let's get this one to 1,000 likes. Hit that subscribe button, ring the notification bell. We will jump right into it and the number one type of college you want to avoid is going to be the online for-profit university mills. Now, I don't want to name any one specifically on this channel because I don't want to subject myself to like getting sued or anything like that. But you know, it's been in the news. All you have to do is type in sketchy online for-profit schools. A list of them will pop up. It's very easy for you to Google this yourself if you want to do it. But basically these online for-profit university mills will put you into programs where you're basically the degree that you get is not going to be respected by any hiring manager or business owner. If they see that you graduated from that university, they are going to throw your resume in the trash can. It might even be better for you to not have any degree at all than to have a degree from one of those universities. On top of that, they are relatively expensive as well.  So make sure that it's accredited by the US Department of Education. But this is honestly like the bare minimum. There have been schools that turned out to be kind of scams later on. Especially the big ones that made the news because they ended up, you know, having a settlement with people and those schools were actually accredited. So just because a school is accredited doesn't mean they still aren't a scam or a semi-scam. And at the end of the video, I'm going to show you a resource that in my opinion is a lot more reliable. It'll tell you whether a college is a good value or not. The next one on the list is going to be overpriced liberal arts colleges. So a lot of these liberal arts colleges are ridiculously expensive. Some of them are even more expensive than Ivy League schools. And they claim that you're going to have an amazing alumni network and this and that. And you know, maybe if you live in a certain area, you might be able to take advantage of that alumni network. But usually it just is not going to pay off for the average person. On the same note, another one that's not worth it is going to be overpriced private universities. Because of the fact that they are private universities, they have that private university status, they can then charge you a lot more than something like a public school or a state school. And again, data shows that you're not really going to make all that much more going to these universities on average than you will just going to a state school. And it costs way, way more. Sometimes like two to three times as much. So your return on investment, the ROI is just not going to be there. The next one on the list is going to be colleges with a bad reputation. Now, this one's a little bit more difficult to explain. But basically, you know, like some of the clients I've worked with, for instance, there's one school in particular that I'm thinking of when this pops into my head, not going to say who they are. But a lot of the time they will actually cause people to graduate with a degree that should take four years and six to seven years instead. And they do this, in my opinion, on purpose because they make more money. So they basically just needlessly make it incredibly difficult for you to finish your degree in that four year track. If you aren't on top of everything, taking extra classes every semester, getting really good grades, whenever the classes pop up, like on the very first day, you're waiting there like to get into the class so that you can actually take that class in the right semester. And then, of course, you have to take this class before you take that class and then that class before you take this other class. So they make it very difficult for you to finish your degree on time. And it should be a type of degree that you should be able to finish on time relatively easily. There's also schools out there that will kind of overcharge you. So for instance, when you're comparing like the cost of different schools, it's better, in my opinion, to go to a school that has a block rate rather than a credit rate. So a block rate is basically where they're going to charge you a certain amount for a semester. And whether you want to take like 13 credits or 18 credits, you're going to be paying the same amount. Whereas a credit rate, if you are an overachiever and you want to take extra credits, you're going to have to pay a lot more. And I think just in general, colleges that aren't very supportive of their students, right? So colleges that don't help their students find a career afterwards. They don't have a very good career center.  There are rankings for colleges online. Those can be kind of helpful. Talk to people who actually went to the college. But I think a really good resource is collegescorecard.ed.gov, right? So this is basically, I'll have it pop up on the screen, collegescorecard. It's a website that was created by the government to kind of help people evaluate which colleges are doing a good job, which colleges are worth it. So it's always a good idea to look up your college that you're thinking about attending on college scorecard. It's going to give you a lot of different metrics, right? So University of Washington, for instance, is a college that scores very high on here. 83% graduation rate, which is that's fantastic. You'll see some of the colleges on here have like a 20% graduation rate or a 30%, which is not good. Average annual costs $13,000. That's not bad. You can even look stuff up by the field of study. You can look up like how much people make if they graduate with like an astrology degree versus an architecture degree or an engineering degree. You can look that up on here. I did make an entire video on this. You can check that video out. But yeah, fantastic resource. But anyways, check out my other videos right here. I made them just for you. Go ahead, gently tap the like button, hit the subscribe button, ring the notification bell, comment down below, any thoughts, comments, criticisms, et cetera that you have on the video. And I will see you next time.


The Equitable Life Assurance Society presents This Is Your FBI. This Is Your FBI. The official broadcast from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Presented transcribed as a public service by the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and the Equitable Society's representative in your community. Do you and your wife worry about what will happen tomorrow instead of getting the most out of life today? There is one way to take the uncertainty out of tomorrow, and that is to plan for it. If you have the right plans, much of your worry is over. Now, there is a man who knows how to help you plan for the future. He is your local Equitable Society representative. In about 13 minutes, I want to tell you more about this helpful, friendly neighbor of yours. Your local representative of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. Tonight, the subject of our FBI file, Homicide, is titled The Jolly Widow. Law-abiding citizens become shocked when they learn of the existence of an almost unbelievable organization whose business is murder. Murder skillfully performed by experts at reasonable prices. Law enforcement has met this menace in the past and will continue to vigorously fight it. The lawlessness and gangsterism which produced gunmen for hire have not suffered total defeat. In this country today, as is shown by tonight's case from the official FBI files, there still exists a class of professional killers, men who will cold-bloodedly shoot down a fellow human being they have never laid eyes on before. Their charge for so doing is, of course, higher than a decade ago, but it is still not regarded as exorbitant by those who patronize its services. Tonight's FBI file opens in a smartly furnished studio apartment in one of the better residential districts of a large western city. The young lady who lives in the apartment is just entering. Molly? Yeah, Carl. Did she go to the lawyers? Of course. I told you I would. What's the story? They want to have the marriage annulled. For how much? Ten thousand. Not enough. Carl, that ain't bad. What do you think you're playing, Jax? Well, it's better than... The Seward family is loaded. If they want to have your marriage to their pride and joy annulled, they've got to up that figure. Plenty. But Carl, don't forget we did frame the guy into marrying me. That's not true. Oh, stop. We got him so drunk he'd have married you if you'd asked him. Very funny. Look, what do I tell the lawyer? About the money? Tell him it's not acceptable. He said that was their final offer. Forget what he said. I've got other ideas. Where's your husband now? On a hunting trip. Where? At his camp. Have you ever been there? Yeah. Why? You know the way up there well enough to direct somebody to the place? Sure. Look, what is this? We're not going to take the ten thousand. And we're not going to have your marriage to Mr. Seward annulled. We're not? No. I know how you can get all of Mr. Seward's money. How? It's very simple. Instead of being his wife, become his widow. Answer the door with your money. Okay. Just a minute. Hello. Hello. It's Carl Jackson here. Are you Wester Colby? That's right. Come in, please. Hello there, Les. Hi, Carl. There's Miss Corning, Mr. Colby. How do you do? Hello. Well, long time, huh? Yeah. You look fine, Les. Fine. Carl, let's get down to business, huh? Oh, sure, sure. I've got a job for you. I can use one. The horse has been running bad? They've been running fine. They're too slow. Can I make you a fell as a drink? Oh, sure, Les. Got you an soda for me, honey. I'll have the same. Okay. What's your deal, Carl? I've got a client. I can't tell you his name. He wants to have a certain party disposed of. For how much? 1,000 cash. Where'd you come up with that kind of a client? Les, I don't ask you anything about your business, do I? Sorry. Where is this guy? He's up in a hunting lodge about 30 miles from here. Miss Corning has drawn a map for you with all the directions. Okay. When do you want the job done? Soon as possible. Tomorrow? Fine. Oh, one thing. Yeah? It should appear to be an accident, a hunting accident. It will. It will. Now here's the guy's picture, Les. Don't make any mistakes. I never have. Here's your drinks, boys. Oh, thank you, dear. Mr. Corby. Thanks. I have a toast. To what? To Les and a successful mission. The following evening at the local FBI field office, a sergeant of the state police is just introducing himself to Special Agent Jim Taylor. Mr. Taylor, I'm Sergeant Welch. Oh, hello there, Sergeant. Your agent in charge sent me in to see you. Fine. Sit down, won't you? Oh, thanks. What's on your mind, Sergeant? My regular patrol includes a pretty remote section of Mountain Country about 30 miles north of here. There was a hunter found dead up there this morning. He'd been shot through the head. You identify him? Yes. His name was Walter Seward. He comes from a well-to-do family here in town. Is this a hunting accident? I don't think so. Why not? Well, there were several factors in the case that made me seem to think he was murdered.  Oh. Now, I've never heard of anyone going hunting with a .38. No, not unless they're hunting people. What other factors have you? We found a car abandoned not too far from the scene of the crime. It had organ plates on it. No office wire to see if it had been stolen. Did you find any trace of the weapon? No. How about footprints? Well, it's pretty dry country this time of year. Well, Sergeant, what would you like the FBI to do? I'd like some help on these. That's a shell I found near the body. And that's the bullet the corner removed from Seward. All right. I'll have them sent on to our laboratory in Washington, and I'll get a check against the National Unidentified Ammunition File Teller. What's that? Well, that's a file of guns and ammunition found at the scenes of unsolved crimes. Now, they'll check the markings on this particular bullet with other .38 slugs that they have on file to see if the same gun was used in any other crime. How long do you think it'll be before you get a report? Well, I'm afraid that depends on how busy they are. However, I'll be in touch with you as soon as I hear from them. Yeah, Millie. Any word from Les? No. You think it'd call or something? He doesn't have to. Why not? He did his job very successfully, too. How do you know? I just read the morning papers. They all carried on account of a very tragic hunting accident. The Seward? Of course. Was he killed? Naturally. That's wonderful. They gave the story quite a play. One of them even had an editorial warning all of its readers to be more careful when they go hunting. No kidding. Hey, maybe we did some good with this. Oh, darling, that was the whole idea to help the community. What happens now? I think you should go see Seward's lawyer. Okay. On your way. Stop off at the bank. What for? Draw out $900. I want to give it to Les. You promised him a thousand. I'm holding out 10% for my commission. How can you charge a commission? I was very careful to tell him the job was for a client of mine. Oh, look. How cheap can you get? Darling, this is merely good business. Okay. What do I say to the lawyer? Just tell him you'd like him to make all the necessary arrangements for you to collect your husband's estate. Carl, I wonder how much it'll be. I'd say at least a quarter of a million. No kidding. Gee, being a widow is wonderful. Busy, Mr. Taylor? No, no. Come on in, Sergeant. Thanks. I just got your message a little while ago. Yeah, I received a report on that bullet. It's in this file here. Here it is. The bullet used to kill Walter Seward matched two others in the unidentified ammunition file. Two others? That's right. In October of 1946, there was a petty racketeer killed back east with the same gun. And in June of this year, the same gun was used to murder a bookmaker. Almost sounds like the owner is a professional. Sure does. There's one thing that puzzles me, though. What's that? Well, the other two known murders that were committed with this gun were killings that involved other criminals.  So how does he fit in? I don't know. We've checked on Seward, but he was never in anything that wasn't legitimate. But if we're correct in assuming that he was killed by a hired gunman, Sergeant, he had to be mixed up in something. That's true. I think the first thing to do then is go and talk to Seward's family. See if he had any enemies. Right. It's good to be back here. So hot downtown. Or is it hot in the lawyer's office? No. His place is air conditioned. That's not what I meant. I mean, how did you make out with him? Oh, I don't think he likes me very much. Really? Why not? I was so charming. Nothing happened. You mean he didn't go for the widow routine? Oh, yeah. He admitted I was a legitimate widow. Did you ask about the estate? Yeah. How much? Over $300,000. Oh, that must be less. Let him in. Okay. Hello. Hello, Mr. Colby. Come in. Thanks. There, Les. Hello, Carl. Allow me to congratulate you. That was a fine job you did. Yeah, thanks. Well, I suppose you've come here about your fee. That's right. Millie. Yes, sir. Did you bring back that cash? Yeah. I have it right here. And Miss Corning cashed my client's check. As you know, he requested secrecy. I know. Here's the money. Thanks. Well, here you are, Les. You're 1,000 less 10% commission for me, making 900 net. Okay. Yes, that closes the books, huh? Not quite. What do you mean? Well, let's review a few of the facts. Well? When you first talked to me about the job, I thought I was going to knock off some stale nobody. So? So I pick up the papers and find I've worked on a guy named Walter Seward, who's worth a bundle. Well, what's your point, Les? I'm getting to that. I also find out that Miss Corning here is Mrs. Walter Seward. Who told you that? It's in the afternoon papers. Les, what difference does that make to you? I can figure as good as you can. She comes into a chunk of dough now as a widow. That's right. And you're going to get a piece of that dough for seeing to it that she became a widow. I still don't see why it matters to you. Carl, I did the dirty work on this job and according to the papers, you two figured to split about 300,000. Where's the whiskey? Why? Well, you two were nice enough to drink a toast to my success when I left for the mountains. Let's drink another toast to our new partnership. We will return in just a moment to tonight's exciting case from the official files of your FBI. Right now, I want to talk about your case, your problem, perhaps the experience of Mr. Walter Wilson, one of the six million members of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, may help you. Mr. Wilson, I wonder if you'll tell me what your problem was before you joined the Equitable Society. My wife and I bought a home, but we wanted to own it free and clear before we were too old to enjoy it. Yes, millions have that same problem, Mr. Wilson. Now, could you tell us what did solve your problem for you? We were listening to this program one evening, and we heard you describe a way to tear up our mortgage years ahead of time. That's the Equitable Assured Home Ownership Plan, the AHO Plan. That's it. So next day, I phoned our local Equitable Representative, and he dropped around that evening. He showed me how the plan provided a low-cost first mortgage with life insurance protection. He showed me how my wife would own the home free and clear without any further payments if something happened to me. Believe me, if all Equitable Men are as helpful as the man I talked to, you've got a fine organization. You can count on Equitable Representatives to be friendly and helpful. They see your problem from your point of view. They help you get the most from your life insurance dollar. You see, Equitable Men are experts, specialists in insurance, and they're backed up at the home office by a staff of trained technicians, actuaries, and economists. So please remember, no matter what your insurance problem may be, there is an answer.  Why not get acquainted with him? There's no obligation. Consult your local telephone directory for your local representative of the Equitable Society. You'll be glad you did. That's E-Q-U-I-T-A-B-L-E, the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. And I'll back to tonight's FBI file, the Jolly Widow. Of all modern inventions, the one which has probably been of greatest benefit to the underworld is the automobile. Getting away in a fast car, a criminal can be many miles from the scene of the crime a few minutes after its commission. But while science sometimes gives aid and comfort to gangsters, it has also developed scores of new and improved methods of crime detection, all of which are constantly employed by your FBI. Tracing a bullet by means of minute markings on it to the gun from which it was fired has led to the conviction of scores of gunmen. In tonight's case, we see the FBI's national unidentified ammunition file make an important contribution to the solution of a particularly vicious murder. Tonight's file continues in the FBI field office. Sergeant Welch of the State Police is just approaching Special Agent Jim Taylor's desk. Hello, Sergeant. Hello, Jim. Did you contact Seward's family? I talked to his lawyer. He said he didn't know any enemies Seward might have had who had wanted murdered. I see. He did tell me something that might help us, though. What was that? Well, he discussed young Seward's secret marriage. Yeah. It seems the marriage was the result of a frame-up, or so the lawyer said. Why didn't they have it annulled? Well, the Seward family hates publicity, and they were in the process of dickering with a girl to get her to agree to an annulment. What was her reaction to that? According to the lawyer, she seemed about to accept their offer of $10,000 when the murder occurred. I see. She against the whole estate now, I guess. Yeah, that's the size of it. Oh, and she's already been in to see him about it. I wouldn't say she was exactly in deep mourning then. Who is she? Or who was she before she married Seward? A nightclub singer. She met Seward in one of the places where she was working. According to his lawyer, she got him quite drunk one night, drove him to a justice of the peace outside the city, and married him. Mm-hmm. Did you find out where we can locate her? Yeah, she lives in an apartment hotel. I checked over there before I came back to the office. She didn't left a word at the desk, but she wouldn't be back for an hour. Can I use your phone, Jim? Surely. I want to report on this to my office. Okay, I'll go over and talk to the widow, and we'll meet back here. Any word from the lawyer? No. Before you were out, I had a visitor. What? No. This was a man named Taylor from the FBI. What did he want? Well, he asked a million questions about Walter. When we got married, how, who was there? What else? I wanted to know if I ever heard Walter talk about any of his enemies. Why'd he ask you that? Well, he said that they knew that Walter was murdered. It wasn't a hunting accident. That's not so good. What do you think went wrong? How do I know? I'm not working with the police. I just thought you might have an idea. Look, don't make me such a big man. You were a full partner when things were good. Have you heard from Les? Not a word. He said he'd get in touch with this one. His money ran out. He must have had a couple of winners at the track. I hope he stays lucky. Maybe he won't bother us then. That's wishful thinking, honey. He'll be back whether he goes broke or not.  He might decide to talk. That wouldn't be so good for us. Wait. I just thought of something that might cover everything. What? You got any stationery in your desk? Sure. I want you to write a letter. To who? To the FBI. Now get some stationery in right when I tell you. Sorry to have kept you waiting, surgeon. I was in talking to the agent in charge about this case. Oh, that's all right, Jim. You get to see Mrs. Seward? Yes, I did. You got anything from her? Well, that's what I was in talking to the agent in charge about. About what she told you? No. She didn't tell me a thing I didn't know before I went over to see her. I don't understand, Jim. Well, after I interviewed her, I came back here to the office. Uh-huh. And about an hour later, I got this note from her. What does it say? Well, when I was talking to her, I asked her whether or not she knew of any enemy that Seward might have had who would go so far as to kill him. And she said no. That's correct. Now, in this note here, she says that she used to go with a hoodlum named Lester Colby before she married Walter Seward. And she thinks that Colby may have killed Seward? Yeah. She says that Colby was insanely jealous of anyone she even spoke to and that in some way he found out about her secret marriage to Seward. Well, who was Colby? We checked up on him. Got a very bad record. Fortunately for us, he's wanted by the FBI for an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. You're going to pick him up? Yeah. Having a warrant drawn up now for his arrest. And another one so that we can search his apartment. Mrs. Seward included his address in the note. When do you want to go over there? What time is it now? About 3.15. Well, that's a warrant. So I'll be ready by now. Let's pick him up and get going. Mrs. Seward, this is one of your partners. What do you want, Mr. Colby? Well, it's a long story. I went up to a bookmaker a little while ago and I bet on three horses that were sure things. How does that concern me? They lost. That's too bad. Well, it's worse than that. I lost a thousand more than I've got. You shouldn't gamble. Look, I didn't call you for any lesson. What did you call for? Well, I want another thousand. Today, I got to pay that bookmaker. Can he wait? Well, it's not his business. He plays for cash. No, I don't care how you do it, but dig me up a thousand by six o'clock. Where am I going to get a thousand dollars? You can call Seward's lawyer. He'll go for it. I can't call him. Look, I just told you. I don't care where you get it. Are you calling me from your apartment? No, I'm at the bookmakers now. Are you going home from there? No. I'm going to stay here until after the last race and then I'm coming over to your place. I'll be there at six o'clock. Be sure you're home and be sure you have that dough. That you, Jim? Y'all. I got the keys. Show the superintendent the search warning into them right over. Let's go in. All right. Does it? I'll go ahead, sir. Thanks. Wow. I got one break anyway. I only got one room to search. Yeah. Let's take a look through this dresser, huh? Okay. Let's see. Shirts. Socks. Hey. This might be what we're looking for. What is it? A 38. That's what was used in sewage. Yeah, I know. Hey, Sergeant. Take a look at this firing pin. Off-center, huh? Uh-huh. You remember the peculiar markings on that shell that you found in sewage's body? Uh-huh. Well, this could easily be the gun that was used. Well, we'll send it along to the laboratory and let them check. They can tell us for sure. Take a look at this one here. Give me the gun, Jim. I'll wrap it up. Oh, okay. Yeah. Thanks. Anything in there? No. I'll try this one. Mr. Colby doesn't have many positions. No. Hey, wait a minute. What? Something underneath. Hey, Sergeant, look here. What is it? It's a hand-drawn map in the directions written here on it. Hey, uh, let me see that, Jim. Yeah. Well, that's the territory where sewage was shot. This ties Colby into it, all right? And does more than that, Sergeant. Let's get back to the office. Where have you been? What's the matter? I got a phone call from my partner. Less? Who else? Where was he? With a bookmaker. Did he say he was going home? No. He's coming over here. Well, then you'll know to the FBI it won't work. I know. Did he say why he was coming here? I'll give you one guess. Money? Naturally. When do you say he'd be here? At six o'clock. Well, six now. I called the FBI a few minutes ago and told him less would be here. When did less call? Two hours ago. Why didn't you call the FBI then? I was too upset. I didn't think. Carl, if he gets here before the FBI does, what will we do? I'll handle that. Do you think we should call him? Answer it. Okay. Hello. Come in, Les. Thanks. Well, all partners present, huh? That's right. I won't waste much of your time. Did you dig me that money? Well, it's not here yet. Would you call the lawyer? Yes, she did. He's sending it over. Okay. That must be the messenger now. Let him in, Millie. Yeah, sure. Hello, Mrs. Seward. Oh, uh, come in. Thank you. I received your message. That man there is Les Colby. Huh? What is this?  I only have a gun. Who are you? I'm a special agent of the FBI. I've got a warrant here for your arrest for the murder of Walter Seward. I'm so glad you got here before he made any trouble. I'm grateful to you too, Mrs. Seward. Hadn't been for you, we might never have known about Colby. Why, you double- We also might never have found the map that you drew for Colby to get to your husband's hunting lodge. Huh? I found that in his room. The written directions on it matched the handwriting in the note that you sent me at the office. There must be some mistake. Well, I'll give all of you a chance to correct it. I'm taking you in now for questioning. Lester Colby was convicted in a state court for murder and sentence to be executed. Carl Jackson was convicted as an accomplice to murder and sentence to be executed. Mildred Corning, his female companion, was also convicted as an accomplice to murder and given life imprisonment. And thus, three more criminals saw their careers ended because of thorough investigative work by a special agent of your FBI. And the important thing about the arrests was that they removed from circulation a professional killer, a man who made his living by murder. His conviction also closed the files on a number of unsolved murders thanks to the unidentified ammunition file, a little known but very important section of the laboratory of your FBI. Would you like to make sure your children get a good education? Would you like to retire in peace and comfort when you're 60? Would you like to own your own home free and clear? You can, and you don't have to be rich to do it. Your local Equitable Society representative, without any obligation to you, will be glad to show you how almost anyone with an average income can make his dreams of a secure future come true. Get acquainted with this helpful, friendly neighbor today. Consult your local telephone directory for the name of your local representative of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. Next week, we will dramatize another case from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It's subject, Larson A. It's title, The Big Frame. The incidents used in tonight's Equitable Life Assurance Society's broadcast are adapted from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, all names used are fictitious, and any similarity thereof to the names of places or persons living or dead is accidental. Tonight, the music was composed and conducted by Frederick Steiner. Your narrator was William Woodson, and Special Agent Taylor was played by Stacey Harris. Others in the cast were Georgia Ellis, Bill Johnstone, Lynn Stallmaster, and John Stephenson. This is Your FBI is a Jerry Divine production. This is Larry Keating speaking for the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, and the Equitable Society's representative in your community. And inviting you to tune in again next week at this same time, when the Equitable Life Assurance Society will bring you another thrilling transcribe story from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Big Frame on This is Your FBI.


All right, thanks for coming to my talk. So first, the obligatory who am I slide. I'm a research scientist at the University of Washington. I was also a grad student there. And back when I was a grad student, I did some of the early car hacking work there. And we did that in collaboration with UC San Diego. And after I finished my PhD, I went there as a postdoc to start on a project where they were looking to do some of the similar type of research that we did with the cars, but on planes instead. And so that's how I got into looking at these avionics systems. So first of all, what is ARINC? ARINC is a company that was founded in 1929 to basically manage all the aviation-related radio licenses. This was chartered by the Federal Radio Commission, the predecessor to the FCC, because that didn't come around until 1934. But basically, they initially managed those radio licenses. And then later, they started to define some of the communication protocols. The company was up until fairly recently owned by a lot of the major airlines and some of the manufacturers like Boeing. And it was sort of a neutral way for airlines and manufacturers to agree upon standards. So the reason that they're important is they developed this thing called ACARS in 1978. And this was initially to automatically report these OOOI events. So that is when a plane gets off the ground or out of the gate, off the ground, on the ground, and in the gate. And this determines crew pay, apparently. So this was very important to the airlines to get that accurate. And so ACARS was developed to automatically report these events over radio when these happened. And since then, ACARS has been expanded to be a generic way of doing ground-to-air messaging. So if you get connecting flight information, that is often pushed through messages sent to ACARS and various things like that. So Air Inc developed ACARS back in 1978. But they've gone on since to develop a number of standards to encourage interoperability between manufacturers of these avionics systems. They also run the ACARS infrastructure. They do have another competitor, but they are one of the major providers. They were acquired by Rockwell Collins fairly recently and now they're owned by United Technologies. But there was sort of a conflict of interest between sort of the commercial messaging services and their standards division. And so the standards part got acquired by SAE International, who does a bunch of the automotive standards. So there's sort of three different classes of standards that Air Inc defines. And so this is right out of the forward of one of their specifications. So there are things that they call characteristics which are not necessarily a full-blown specification, but basically expressing the desires of the various airline manufacturers. Airline, airline, God, why am I blinking? The airliners, yeah. So, and then there's the actual specifications which are more technical and they fully define things like the various data buses that are used in planes. And then there's reports that, well, they're not that interesting to us hackers. So let's start with Air Inc. 429. So I like to call this the CAN bus of aviation. So as you might know, the CAN bus is used to send messages between different components in the cart. And similarly on airplanes, on a lot of them they use Air Inc. 429. And instead of sending several bytes at a time, as within CAN, Air Inc. 429 can only send 32-bit words. They're sent over a differential pair. There's both low-speed and high-speed versions of Air Inc. 429. The low-speed version goes at, what, 12 and a half kilobits per second and the high-speed version is 100 kilobits per second. Like CAN, there's sort of a label which either defines the message type or it defines the recipient of a particular message based on the type of message that it is. And one of the really interesting things that distinguishes 429 from CAN is that it is physically a single sender, multiple receiver network. And so this means that if your in-flight entertainment system is connected up to some other part of the plane, say the flight management computer to receive like the current altitude or things like that to show passengers, it can only, it only has the physical hardware to receive that information. It can't actually assert that back onto the bus. And so you might have heard claims before about SEM37s could go sideways or whatnot through the in-flight entertainment system. What I think probably happened there is they might have gotten on to the in-flight entertainment system and ran something similar to Wireshark and saw all these packets coming in and assumed you could just send and spoof them but you actually can't, you can just receive them. For various reasons, the label is at most significant bit first while the rest of the data is least significant bit first. And honestly, this is the hardest part about dealing with 429, especially because some transceivers decide to be helpful and automatically swap the endianess for you. And then you have to figure out if it was automatically swapped or not. And then in some cases, it'll have like, so if you do an exchange between two different units where they exchange their system address labels, you have to deal with the endianess there and it's just complete insanity. So that's a bit unfortunate, but it is what it is. So there's a few different types of messages. Some of the original stuff were sort of status messages and they have a few bits dedicated to what they call this signed status matrix. And so they'll send values like the current altitude or current heading and the signed status matrix bits, say either whether it's positive or negative north or south, whether a system is okay or failing or running a self-test, things like that. There's also what they call the character oriented protocol and this is used to send sort of character streams between various systems. So this is used, for example, between the communications management unit that I'll talk about in a bit and the MCDU, the display unit that I'll talk about in a bit. It's also used to push things to the printer, for example. And then there's also this bit oriented protocol that I'll talk about in a second. So this is right out of the 429 specification just to make it a bit more concrete as to what this looks like. So you have this parity bit here as the last bit. You have this label. This SDI is either a source or destination. So in planes, you'll have redundant units. And so this will indicate whether it's the, which side of the plane the redundant unit is on. And then this is a pretty old standard. So they'll commonly send things as binary coded decimal values or in some cases binary values. And you can also send discrete bits as well from like sensors to say whether the wheels are on the ground or not. Yeah, so a bit more about the character oriented protocol as opposed to these sort of status messages. They specify the receiver of a particular message and the label. This is used by the communications management unit, the display, the printer, things like that. And there's sort of a handshake that goes on, but between the various units involved where the unit that wants to initiate a transfer sends a request to send, the other unit says a clear send back and they sort of acknowledge data as it goes along. This has been, this is still used, but it's kind of been deprecated in a favor for something they call the bit oriented protocol, which is used to send five nibbles at a time, which is oh, so fun to deal with. There's two versions. The first version is sort of similar to the character oriented protocol where basically there's a handshake and it says how much data you're about to transfer and which block you're transferring and things like that. So that goes back and forth. And then surprise, version three, it's Ethernet. It is, this just blew my mind that they actually decided to put a 802 frame right into and shove it into these airing 429 words. And this is used by the new VHF data radio standard that I'll talk about in a bit. And it also has a 16 bit CRC along with the standard Ethernet bits there as well. 615 defines the data loader. So this is used to update flight navigation databases, firmware in some cases, things like that. The protocol is pretty similar to the character oriented protocol with some minor differences to deal with specifics of data loading. And this is actually a photo from a 737 of a data loader that is installed into the plane. And yes, it literally takes floppies and you set the little switch to which unit you wanna update and you press go and then it updates the system, which I thought was pretty weird. But yeah, again, it is what it is. And yeah, almost certainly no code signing there. And I've heard that the recommended best practice for authenticating these updates is to check the return address on the label from where you got it from. It's better now in newer planes, but this is still sort of in many planes today. 618 defines the air ground link in ACARS. So those ACARS messages consist of a mode. There's sort of two different modes that of ACARS messages that you can send. It has the address of the aircraft that you're talking to, which is based on the tail number. There's an acknowledgement counter, which is used to, it's basically like a TCP acknowledgement number that just cycles through so that you can confirm that aircraft has received a particular packet. There's a two character label, which identifies the type of message. And if it's a multi, if the message can't fit within a single ACARS packet, it gets split up into blocks. And so there's a block identifier there to indicate which particular part of the message it is. Then there's just the regular text and a checksum. So 618 also defines how this gets transmitted over the air and it's basically just a frequency shift keying or minimum shift keying modem. If you tune in on what is it, 131.5 megahertz using just AM modulation, you'll hear these squawks occasionally, which are these ACARS packets. The radio itself, the interface between the communications management unit and the radio itself is defined in Air Inc. 716, which basically just lets the communications management unit retune the radio and it defines the analog signals that are sent between them. There's this new thing too called VDL2, a VHF Datalink 2, which is a new digital mode. It uses sort of a newer modulation scheme that's completely digital. And instead of this sort of homegrown ACARS protocol for doing acknowledgments and things like that, it uses this AVLC framing system, which is based on HDLC, which is sort of a common way of dealing with acknowledgments and sort of the link layer issues. So there's the Air Inc. 750 standard that defines both the radio and this new digital mode. But there's a, in 618 they also define ACARS over AVLC and so you can carry these traditional ACARS messages over this new VDL link. This new VDL link also will support things like automatically contacting of air traffic control, so there's air traffic control applications that are being sent over this now. I believe that's used more in Europe than the US, but maybe that's coming. There's a couple of other ACARS standards that you should know about. So 619 defines the interface between this communication management unit and other LRUs. So LRUs are line replaceable units, they're basically just in generic term for the other units in a plane. So things like the flight management computer, cockpit printer, the MCDU, all these other things are just LRUs. It's kind of the car equivalent would be ECU for example. Each industry sort of has its own term. So this just defines sort of a generic way to forward messages from the CMU to these other systems. For example, pushing a message from the CMU to the cockpit printer to have your connecting gate information for example. And then 620 sort of defines the way that the ground segment works and how airlines communicate with the service provider to send this information back and forth. So speaking of the communications management unit, they have a standard for that as well. Originally this was just called the A-cars unit, but now it's sort of a generic communications hub. Can send things like engine performance and diagnostic data. It'll talk to the printer. It can push flight plan updates to the FMS although they have to be manually confirmed by the pilots. And it also sort of defines the physical interface to the rest of the aircraft. So here's a couple of figures from the standard which basically define what all the pins are on the back connector.  Yeah. So the way that you typically interact with this communications management unit is with what's called the MCDU. This is also defined in an airing standard, this is in 39A. It stands for multi-purpose control and display unit and this is sort of a common interface for the communications management unit, flight management system, things like that. Originally they were sort of separate systems that had their own display but this now allows a common interface to all these systems. So this was, I thought this was a 20 minute talk so I was gonna wrap it up here by mentioning some other airing standards that are interesting. So 702A talks a bit. What? Okay, well yeah, it's just, yeah. It's fine. So there are standards that cover the flight management system, cockpit printer. The 777 has its own unique data bus which, well, to be honest, you can't get surplus 777 parts off of eBay so I'm not that interested in them. Same with 664. This is actually a deterministic Ethernet for aviation, sort of a high reliability version of Ethernet that guarantees no packet loss and this is used on near aircraft such as the 787 or A380 and it sort of simulates those unidirectional 429 buses with VLANs and supposedly that works. Probably works but there's, we'll see. There's this standard called gate link which lets you do wifi to the aircraft and this connects with the communications management unit and so this is a way to push updates to the plane through wifi instead of going over the much more expensive VHF radios or satellite and then there's also a 25 which I recently just became aware of which is basically using or adapting the CAN bus for aviation so basically that's all I have so thanks for your attention and I'll take any questions, questions. Okay, sure. So the thing that stops them from sending messages is that the hardware to send and receive 429 packets is different and so basically it's just a, it's physically just a receiver module there and so even if you take total control over the system it's basically just a receiver module there and so even if you take total control over the system even if you take total control over the system you still can't physically turn that into something that can transmit data back onto that 429 bus. Yes. Okay. So you got 429, you got the 429 over a VLAN thing. Yes. Yeah so the question is simulating 429 with VLANs is that gonna supplant 429? So I believe in the 787 and A380 it does. They use Ethernet. I'm getting a ish so, okay. So he said basic systems still have 429 but yes, yes. So the question there was does that change the assumption about just having the hardware to send or just having the hardware to receive and yes it does and that's why you have to ensure this isolation through the network switches and with VLANs and things like that. I wish I could get my hands on a switch to play with this but they cost like $50,000 and they're not really falling off of the back of a truck or anything so I'm sad. Anything else? You mentioned that, your speaker gift is. Oh wow. Next please join me in thanking Kyle for his presentation. All right, thanks.


Good morning traders, Patrick Munley here with another Ticknell chart, hope you want to draw your attention today to a developing opportunity in the Kiwi dollar on the four hour timeframe as highlighting previous analysis we've been in this bullish consolidation triangle pattern. We've broken out of that now to the upside and what I'm looking for is any pullbacks back in to retest the prior descending trend line resistance as support with bullish reversal patterns, set long positions, targeted move to retest the prior highs, weekly range resistance up to 73, and then extension up towards the monthly predicted range resistance at 73.50. As always traders, trade the plan and most importantly manage your risk. Until next time, thanks very much.


Welcome folks, we have the Dow Industries trading up $278, NASDAQ is up $192, S&Ps are up $50, Gold contract down $5.30, trading at $19.85 an ounce, we have Silver up $0.08, trading at $23.50 an ounce, LightSuite Crew down $0.24, $72.96 a barrel, notes and bonds, Ten year note, trading down 4 ticks at $114.16, the 30 year off 6 at $129.25 and $KingDollar, $KingDollar is up $224 ticks, trading at $102.654, the Euro is at $108, the Yen is at $132 and the British Pound is at $123 to $1.00 USD. Let's get over and take a look at the S&P, the E-mini out here, so what we just had in the E-mini and the NASDAQ folks is that you just took out the swing and you have the volume taking the swing out. So that's saying higher prices are coming at us here. Take a look at this, what you're going to see, you just got over the swing, the swing we're talking about here. So your benchmark here, now this is where this gets interesting, okay, so you've got 60 minutes left, right, you've got 4,052 in the S&P futures.  So this gets intriguing, because the difference between today and yesterday is that we do have a high volume low that's sitting out here at 4,032. My take here though is that this thing is going to stay at higher price. That's where it looks like to me right now, because you get over there, they punched it over there, the longer that we stay over this 4,049, you're basically coming into window dressing, and then if we look at the NQs, what you're going to see in the NQs is kind of the same setup. It'll be this bar though, we're going to make a break right on this bar right here, because this was early. What does happen is that when it does it early, your probability that you can just give it up in a second is there also. So I expect as soon as I'm coming back, I'll be able to give you better information. Take a look at the NQs, they did the same thing. The NQ spiked its high, and then the benchmark on the NQs is 937, and right now you're at 940. So that's the number, because if the next bar, if we close into those benchmarks, then we're going right back downtown, because same with the NQ, the NQ has volume at 854. Stay right there folks, we're coming right back.


There are three main types of bankruptcy cases. These are referred to by their chapter number in the bankruptcy code, Chapter 7, Chapter 11, and Chapter 13. The bankruptcy code is federal, not state law, and bankruptcy cases are filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court, not in a state court. The most common types of cases for individuals are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. A Chapter 7 is a liquidating bankruptcy. In return for having debts discharged, meaning the debtor is no longer legally obligated to pay them, the debtor must turn over certain property to the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee. The law allows the debtor to keep some property as exempt so the debtor can make a fresh start. In most Chapter 7 cases, all property is exempt, and so the debtor keeps all of the property. Those cases are sometimes called no-asset cases. If a debtor has more assets than can be exempted, the trustee sells the non-exempt property and distributes the proceeds to the creditors according to priorities established by law. Very often there is not enough money to pay for anything more than the cost of administration, and so the creditors receive nothing. The principal advantage of Chapter 7 is that the debtor emerges from bankruptcy without any future obligations on his or her discharged debts. Some debts cannot be discharged. For example, debts incurred through fraud or debts for child support and alimony. A Chapter 13 case is often used by individuals who want to catch up past due mortgage or car loan payments and keep their assets. In Chapter 13, the debtor must propose in good faith to pay all or part of the debts from future income over a period of three to five years. If the court approves the plan, the debts may be settled in this manner, even if some creditors object to the plan. If the debtor makes the required payments, he or she will be able to keep his or her property. Chapter 13 can be a better choice than Chapter 7 for those who are behind on their home mortgage or their car loans, as well as for other reasons. For instance, some of the debts that cannot be discharged in a Chapter 7 can be discharged in Chapter 13. Also, the debtor can pay some non-dischargeable federal taxes over the term of the Chapter 13 plan without interest. Chapter 13 can only be used by an individual debtor, not by a corporation. An individual engaged in business, not as a corporation, might use Chapter 13 to pay debts or settle them over a period of time while he or she continues to own and operate the business. However, Chapter 13 can be used only if the total debts owed are less than certain limits for secured and unsecured debts. Another type of bankruptcy case is a Chapter 11 reorganization. It is generally used by businesses, but can be used by individual debtors who do not qualify for Chapter 13 because their debts exceed the Chapter 13 limit.


Good to see you all again this morning and welcome to the first session. We're going to spend looking at how to grapple with the question of standardizing file formats. We as a community of good simulation users and simulation tool designers and simulation tool implementers can make sure that we are doing the best kind of things that our mobile users can have. We're doing the science they need to do. Because we are, fundamentally, here to make sure that we can do good science. We've been doing this in the time that we've been able to do it. My name is Mark Lakeria. I'll be sharing the session today. I come to you wearing one of the hats from BioXL, which is the primary sponsor of this project. I lead the work package of BioXL that deals primarily with software development. A large number of European... Sorry, a small number of high impact European applications. Chiefly Gromax and Hadock, which are applications I'm working on here, further from the two other contributors to this session, I was able to work on them and they're going to end up working with both of you. So they respectively lead the Hadock docking code development effort and also the Gromax development effort. But they too have a number of other hats in this community. I will be privileged to donate to learn from their long experience. What they see as leads and how they see best we can grapple with some of those. So having heard a little bit from me to set some stage, we'll throw it to them. They will share their ideas and expertise with us. But then we'll move into it again to join today as we did yesterday. So we'll see our lovely sailboats here, which we'll use as models. I will pose to you some ideas that we can break up to those groups and then we can proceed and have some fruitful discussions bringing together all the disparate ideas and experience that we have here. Just as a reminder of what we are all here to discuss last night as Matthew brought to us that we're here to discuss to find the ideas that we'll have in our own minds from our own individual past experiences. We want to find the kernels of best practice that we have already. Sometimes identify what we need to create as best practice because our existing things are legacy best practice and we need to move as the state of the art moves. We need to highlight the issues that do exist. We need to find new solutions. We've identified and currently we have problems that maybe were good solution 10 years ago but no longer fit. We need to, as a community, be prepared to move on from them. And finally, we need to make sure that we have produced LF ideas and have an especially rounded discussion that we can produce a community white paper that can be moving forward to be able to propose funding for projects that actually implement some of the tools that we might propose or the formats that we might discuss. So the support for us to produce this concrete output so that our community gets a lot of coming forward from our discussion rather than just generating a bunch of ideas that we can start with. So my take on trying to evolve standard file formats is that we need to first of all start to understand what our community community really do need. Many of us already have that kind of knowledge in the back of our heads somewhere. Many of us have grown up from being simulation users or perhaps now tool developers or research BIs in the field. Some of our experience starts getting a bit dated so we need to remember, of course, that we should go back to the people who are actually living in the coal phase and remember to talk to them about their problems not just the ones we remember for being with you three years ago. So we need to make sure that we take the ideas that come from the expertise we have gathered here and go back out to other folks in the community as there's many other stakeholders. These views we need to make sure we try to represent them and to interact with others in a later role. Successful file formats, as with all kinds of standards, have to grapple with the 10 plus 1 standard format. I'm not sure we're all familiar with the classic XKCD where people say, there's a problem that's in different file formats. What we should do is design one true file format that would be able to identify everybody's use cases. We have 10 plus 1 standards and two years later the same discussion happens again. One of the challenges with that is that when you try to design a file format you only have a luma to the set of use cases in one of my chief proposals today. Is that we need to focus on things like modularity and extensibility of the ways in which we store data not necessarily file formats so that we have the ability to cater to future needs. While we have some good file formats that have been useful in the past out there, they're clearly dedicated to all the possible use cases that we will dream of in the future. We are in the business of doing research, we should not be targeting, yes, I need the perfect file format for what I can consume and do it today. I have something that also has the possibility of being usable in 5 to 10 years time or in some other uses of European capitals in 5 to 10 years, because we haven't yet another workshop for how we move to the state of the art. I want us to have the ability to search for solutions that are able to be extended, that are able to be implemented by the tool providers in a way that means the users just say, I have this file, this object storage model, the details of how it lives on disk or in the cloud or elsewhere should not be in the forefront of our user's mind. We want them thinking about how do I design and execute a simulation, how do I analyze my results, how do I advance society's understanding of these kinds of properties that we're trying to simulate. In building a standing, you need to be able to involve a community around that standing. So in my day job as the developer of Romax, I've been able to see for someone from far, the evolution of the standing, both in C++, but the perfect role is to open MP and MPI. Each of those hasn't evolved from a group of people that met together to realize that we have a need. Nobody appointed them the stand as a body. They got together and recognized that this would be the thing for our community. And as I don't remember as we came on, Matthew said yesterday, the legitimacy comes from actually doing everything that you do. If you gather together a group of people and you do something credible, you won't take everything right. None of these standards ever got anything right. We won't get anything right either. We'll move forward and recognize that not doing anything is the enemy of everything. We don't have to try and get perfection in our first step. So we need to have in mind that as we move towards some sort of standardization process, we need to try and build a community of people who represent the different stakeholders. We need some people who are users. We need some people who are research PIs. We need some people who are responsible for maintaining long-term data storage. We need some toolmaking matters. We need some analysis with NDS. We need to be at the table to look at the standard credible standard. So that's something we should have in our back-down minds of an HDR or two. People who are able to do something that can lead to more standard file formats. We need to have a community who are prepared to do it. We should make sure that we have a reference implementation in mind. It does us no good to spend an hour here theory-crafting of what we would do would actually be able to be implemented by people who are actually able to implement it. We need to be able to work on coding that can be valid for storing the data we currently have now, as well as how we see things. When we would have such a sample with the proposed standard available, we would need to make available to the community some standard files in that. So sometimes we would need to do some front work to actually say, hey, the community here is architecturally in this part of our work would look. Would you be able to implement your tool? Would you be able to package, be able to handle this? Would your red students be able to do this file format? Does it meet your needs? Does what we're doing into changing it before you get to the point of standardization? I would encourage all of us to start by assuming that models of file formats are really most familiar with unsuitable. We're very likely to have to move on from the state of the art. Remember that you too have only a small part of the picture. You're holding the elephant's leg or the elephant's trunk. You don't see the whole element. If you're doing this, you're holding the pieces of the element. Next a quick word about what we're not trying to actually do today. Here are just some things that have came up in my searching around this topic as things that we're not talking about either in this workshop or in this session. We're not worried about how dark sets will be sightable. We're not worried about how we're going to piece together simulations into large workflows. We're not worried so much about simulation management. What's the process of designing a simulation and how do I visualize my results? How do I understand what is going on with the complex machinery that is along the simulation? How do I analyze my share? All these sorts of things are things that we need to have on our horizon but we're not going to directly talk about those today, I feel. People have different ideas. I haven't come through in the group discussion. As a session chair, these are the sorts of things I don't feel are things we should have on the table today just so that we have managing problems. And actually, of course, we are far too small and far too selective in the community to actually really understand it and we certainly don't have the right time today to actually make some time to progress in that direction. What we can do is set up our role and go into how they see fit. So now, I would particularly invite contributions from people so that we have group boundary conditions for the subsequent group discussion. Pretty cool in any discussion of our formats. What do we think people's needs actually are? I come from a strong mathematics background but I have a little bit of other computational science experience as well. There may be things that you people perceive as needs that are a lot on my radar. If you see things up here that you think don't belong or that you think are missing from up here, I would very much like to hear from you now so that we can have all of you together as a discussion community. I use this often to describe the calculation I want to do. That comes in many different forms. I don't even want to feel these things missing here. Yes, Joe. There's not a description of what it is, what the chemical matter is or the physical thing that you're simulating in this case. You have the model physics that can be divorced entirely from the actual chemical species that's being modeled. Yeah. It's difficult to go back to interpretability if you're missing that information. There's no standard we have for describing that kind of thing. Yes. In my academic simulations that's often implicit. I have some coordinates I'm wanting to apology but it's very non-discovered what this thing is. So in a classic it's basically you lose things like formal charges because you've actually lost the chemical information about amortypes, bonding what is the formal charges on the system trying to redescalate that kind of information in fact it's extremely difficult because you can't just take points with charges but points connected and actually work out what chemical species is the source originally. So when we say that the two aspects we're trying to talk about it's all the way from full charge models all the way through to which state of which iron shell is this. Yes. It's a full gamut of data function of the information that's going to be missing in the world. And the model physics includes the parameters there? Yes. We have this question. Why is there cunot potential of the finite storm cutoff in the same piece? Yes. Those are two key aspects that are currently growing together in all periods. They don't have to be together. One of the classic ones is things to do with some packages doing the same thing some packages put things like the shape parameters in the file format and some packages put the shape parameters in the control input files and some packages are in great quantities and again, it's that kind of information which is almost there's a distinction between what is the thing we're modeling and how we're modeling it and those two things are actually two different things and if you bundle or trans-bundled what is the thing we're modeling with how we're modeling it together as one place actually makes fun for a bit of very difficult to work with because ultimately we're modeling it together which is both capturing trajectory data and capturing checkpoint data and restarting simulations and all the data which is how I'm actually going to do stuff with that but actually what you want is data which is this is the molecular system the chemical system what we're doing and then I'll take those molecules and I'll do docking of them and then I'll do kinematics and the information you need to do is different tasks should be in the file that describes this is the actual chemistry of the molecules well, once you have when you get the trajectory and you just have the trajectory without how it had been obtained you lose a lot of the interpretability it's difficult to interpret the trajectory if you do not know what's behind and how it has been produced you could have two files one on how and one on what but then if you have it has its own challenges in that you have to have these two files together in sync and be sure that you can get one from and the others that they will not be spread and dispersed very deeply if I have one file that says this is how it is I have a million trajectory all using that one file but this is how I did it and actually this is how I did it it's such a huge space in terms of there's a million beyond just for lack of analysis there's a million different ways you could how I did it and so actually trying to merge the trajectory information with how I did it is effective it's a simple thing to do it's just different things together but you have to do that that's undoubtedly in the file format it's as simple as this stuff in it so it sounds as if there is not at all a consensus over whether we should just have the data or also have the workflow in the file format it sounds like a warning for discussion yeah yep that would be something that I think we can usually discuss in our past quarters thank you for the contributions so far so yes there's a number of other things I've commented on there isn't there anything else people want to talk about I call that experimental data there because we really need to a regime where we want to try not to just have the force field and hold the encryption as how we describe simulation so you guys have multiple scales so one of the limitations in the file format is that they don't really cope at all when you have different parts of the system what made it different scales so there isn't a single trajectory format which can handle an atomistic interfacing with the core strain interfacing with the VESA system or CFG systems of people learning how to create really weird things so do you want to stay on trajectories so guys strong is to just one thing thanks for what we must have there not that we can have it we've been through this at ten times and what happens is that everybody agrees with a great idea is who will provide the funding for this without any funding to maintain it indefinitely so I think that thing comes down to what is the file format for is this actually for the left dynamic trajectory data atomistic so is this a scope question so I guess just to keep the station kind of in the shape it's very nice and interesting discussion what we could do is maybe keep your slide for the group discussion on make the discussion out of it and we might come up with some ideas or at least things in group discussions put everything together and we'll keep that as a support for the main discussion we'll be back moving from inputs to outputs I mean critical things for like the simulation architects but people will end up with that stuff often when you're generating thousands of trajectories it might be compute properties on the fly so that you'll amortize the cost for having to reprocess lots of trajectories so the ability to store arbitrary observables or some sort of mechanical properties is often extremely useful yeah I'm viewing that as public persuasive analysis whether they go into the same volume rather than all of these something a little different so I think it's a need to introduce those are those are okay so you're using language in these corners can you basically bind this is this little Q&Q it's all coins any time dependent state perhaps any time dependent state is cool sometimes lots of people want forces so it's very difficult to bind each other on the floor without everybody reasoning so I've forecasted some of my take already I think we very much need to move towards a container style approach many of our legacy formats were things that people developed over the preceding decades very much with I'm recommending this tool I need to get some dial on the disk and there's not an existing community or standard so I just need to do something we've learned lessons from what they did well and what they did badly so we should be more informed on this with view of not being to continue having these kinds of discussions we need to work on approaches that are increasingly extensible we shouldn't need to meet again in five years time we need to redefine what our simulations mean but we'll be able to be extended by two quarters of the day by being able to maintain that compatibility so things like models we can see in the audio visual community where there might be a file format with multiple codecs that describe the ways to interpret the contents of the individual containers within the file or the object store are ways that I think we need to move even within the Gromix projects about ten years ago we were talking about the TNG file format that is both the object store and the numerous kinds of containers and also the codec for the risk of getting compression of both time and spatially which is extremely efficient there's no reason why we can't take those codecs and use them in other file formats we should be very much thinking in terms of these approaches people are going to come up with different domain specific compression algorithms we try to design one true file format without thinking too much we generally need to think about both human and machine readability for some of our files humans obviously aren't going to sit and read a whole lot of analytics directory but they absolutely need to be able to read the metadata we need to extract that from the file we need to make sure we can annotate our files after we have written them without disturbing the integrity of the works of simulation dial that are contained within it so often we need to run a bunch of simulations so that some of these are more interesting than others or valuable than others annotate those afterwards while still preserving things like internal checksum of particular buckets of data so that when we come to finish up the project we have to move our working set of simulation data to the long term store at the ability to store it we are still storing our original directory data where we intend to we're storing post-processed stuff where we intend to we should also be able to describe something about the input that produced it as Joe was pointing out what is the simulation description now how big is the workflow description this is a full question we will likely need different solutions for different needs we are going to kind of design the one to be able to do a simulation file format we have needs for input, needs for output needs for large amounts of compressed directory data needs for human readable topologies that you have in your credits to kind of be able to take the browser around so we will need to come up with combinations of things that are meaning our multiple needs we should also take in mind that there are many other communities out there that have dealt with similar kinds of challenges so the human people also have to write out large amounts of data about in their case typically things like molecular orbitals and so forth astronomy too has very long time scale simulations we should be checking what data formats do they use how do they solve their problems bioinformatics likewise has to take in large amounts of input data what we need to learn from them material science and so on and of course the audio visual community we already have so let's now throw to our experts here perhaps Eric first and then I'll go over it