My name's Ken Rogers, and this is Think Tech Hawaii. And this is a series called View from the North, or View from Canada, about items of interest to Americans. This episode today is on military law, comparing the US with Canada and other countries. I have two very esteemed guests today. Firstly, I have Rory Fowler. Rory has a unique education. There's very unusual that somebody has two college degrees in law, and particularly from two different countries. Rory has a normal bachelor of law degree from an esteemed Canadian university and a master's degree from the prestigious university college in London, England. He has 28 years of experience in the Canadian military or Canadian forces as they call them up here. He at first was an officer in the infantry, which sounds unusual for a lawyer. But then for most of his career, he was a legal officer in the office of what they call the Judge Advocate General in Canada. Since 2017, he's been in private legal practice with his own firm in Kingston, Ontario. And he's a very frequent and coveted speaker on military law in Canada. My other esteemed guests, since we have a very powerful Canadian, I figured we had to match it with a powerful American. We have Gene Fidel, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School and has taught military justice in three of the top law schools in the United States, Yale, Harvard, and New York University. He's the author of a book called Military Justice, a very short introduction. If you're interested, that's available on Amazon or in your local bookstore. He also was a co-founder and is currently a director of the National Institute of Military Justice. That's a, as Americans call them, an NGO or a nonprofit non-government organization, a very prestigious one. He's also the editor of the blog called Global Military Justice Reform. Now with that introduction, I expect brilliant remarks from the two of you. Since my knowledge of military law is not great, so why don't we start with just what's the basis of military justice system? And why do we have separate law? Why doesn't the rest of the normal law work? What's the whole point of a military justice system? Apprevu, Rory. Thanks, Gene. I was actually going to say after you, but you managed to beat me to the punch. Well, Ken, we can talk about, and Gene and I probably definitely will, talk about the constitutional and legislative basis for military law. But let's talk conceptually, normatively. Why do we have a separate system of military justice? And both the United States and Canada and many of our allied countries, particularly the common law countries, have a separate system of military justice that functions not just during wartime, not just during operations, but even during peacetime and during domestic training. And so conceptually, at least in Canada, and I'm confident in saying that it's pretty much a similar justification in the States. Conceptually, the justification for having a separate system of military justice is that parallels, and often in Canada, incorporates elements of our criminal law is because of the need to maintain the discipline, efficiency, and morale of our armed forces. And that's been tested at various stages in history in Canada before the Supreme Court of Canada, most notably after the introduction in the Charter, there was a 1993 case of the Queen versus Genaro, and much more recently in 2019, the Queen versus Stillman. And in fact, in Stillman, there were multiple members of the Canadian forces who were involved in that appeal. But what the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld is that the maintenance of that discipline, efficiency, and morale of the Canadian forces is not something that is simply enforced during operations or during wartime, that it is something that is manifest and something that needs to be maintained at all times, and therefore having a separate system, albeit one that is essentially consistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, much like our criminal justice system, is justified at law because of the need to maintain an effective fighting force. And I'll turn over to Gene for him to talk about the American experience. Right, well, of course, our experience, our roots are very much the same as the roots of the Canadian system, both systems traced to the Articles of War that were signed by our last King, George III, a couple of years before the Revolution. And indeed, the specter of his late majesty continues to tread the boards, aspects of the system that he presided over continue with us in both systems. And really the history of the last or the period since World War II in both countries has been a period of, on the one hand, dramatic reform, and on the other hand, a retention of some of the central elements of George III's system. I'm not making fun of George III. Actually, I think history is increasingly kind to him. But the facts are the facts, and his government has left us a lasting legacy, a legacy that extends to a continually large part of the world, and I'm thinking of India, Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria, country after country, in or formally in the Commonwealth of Nations. And it's a tremendous legacy. It's really interesting as kind of the history of ideas and the history of law and legal institutions. But let's get into some of the issues. Well, and I want to make one more point, one more point, and then, Rory, I'd be interested in your reaction to this. In English history, and I've had occasion in connection with a case that I'm currently working on to really drill down into the English history in the 18th century, English military legal history, and it's clear that Parliament was very jealous about guarding the civil liberties of the subject. They kept the military and the military justice system on a very short leash. It's a fascinating tale, and you don't think of the military legal context as a place where you would look for the manifestation of fundamental democratic values, but actually they're there. And for example, Parliament was very hostile in the 18th century to a standing army. And as a result, there was something called the Mutiny Act that had to be re-enacted by Parliament every single year. So this was a really, really short leash. I think we've gotten away from that, probably because we trust our armed forces now more than they may have done in the 18th century, but it's just telling. And how little we know really about that period, I don't know about Rory's probably up on this. And Ken, I'm sure you're very up on the 18th century as well. Do you remember the 18th century, Ken? Not quite that old. But perhaps to add a question and throw it to Rory is really what is the role of the normal courts vis-à-vis the military justice system? And how independent is the military justice from a normal court? Well, Ken, that's a huge question because of all that's implied. So I'll try and break it down and what I'll talk about, I'll talk about three separate things. And I'll talk about the independence of our military courts. And I think this is really the nub of what Jean and I are gonna talk about this evening. And so I'm gonna leave that to the end, the independence issue. And there's an ironic little twist in that some leading case law in Canada that emerged just as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted that dealt with the independence of courts generally actually borrowed from a pre-charter case of military law and the independence of courts martial. And we've now come full circle now that the Supreme Court of Canada recently accepted or granted leave for appeal in a series of cases that deals with the independence of military judges. So we've come full circle in the space of about 45 years. But I'm gonna leave the independence for the end because that's probably gonna be our stepping off point for further discussion. The other thing I'm going to talk about is what do we mean by military justice? And there's a narrow definition and a broad definition. And then we can talk about the role of ordinary civil courts in resolving questions of military justice. So in Canada, last year, Bill C77 finally came into force or significant elements of it came into force. Bill C77, which was an act to amend the National Defense Act that introduced the victim's Bill of Rights to the Canadian military justice system was actually enacted in 2019. But significant portions of it only came into force on the 20th of June, 2022. It took three years for the governor and council to enact the regulations that would bring it into force. And one of the things that that did is it introduced an express definition of military justice for the National Defense Act. And military justice essentially is equivalent to the code of service discipline. Now that's the narrow definition. That's the disciplinary regime that governs the Canadian forces. But one could talk about military justice in a much more broad sense because when we look at the maintenance of discipline, efficiency and morale in the Canadian forces, the code of service discipline is but one tool that is used for that. It's a heavy tool. It's a big tool. It's a big hammer that can be used to discipline members of the Canadian forces. But it's not the only one that's used and increasingly I would suggest it's not even the most frequently used. Increasingly over the past seven years, I have seen an increase in the use of what can be characterized as administrative measures. So non-disciplinary measures that are used to maintain the discipline, efficiency and morale of the Canadian forces. And when a member of the armed forces feels aggrieved by any such administrative measures, their first course of action would be to bring a grievance within the statutory process that's set out in the national defense set. But after that, they have recourse to the ordinary civil court, specifically the federal court of Canada. And so the civil court still have a role to play in supervising the executive when they're exercising those administrative decision-making powers. We've also seen where the civil courts continue to have a role to play based upon recent direction, when I say recent, it was about a year and a half ago that the minister of national defense issued to the director of military prosecutions to the Canadian forces, Provo Marshall that allegations of sexual assault and other allegations of criminal misconduct of a sexual nature will be investigated by civil police and will be prosecuted before the civil courts because our civil courts have parallel and concurrent jurisdiction in matters of criminal law. So if a member of the Canadian forces commits an assault, a criminal code assault under section 266, they could potentially be prosecuted at court Marshall but they could also be prosecuted before a civil court either a provincial court or a superior court of justice. So there is concurrent parallel jurisdiction. Now one could argue that the minister of national defense doesn't have the power to issue direction directly to the director of military prosecutions or the Canadian forces of Provo Marshall. In fact, I've overtly said that because she doesn't but the point to take away from that is that the civil courts continue to have jurisdiction and we are seeing some but not all allegations of sexualized criminal misconduct allegedly committed by members of the Canadian forces being prosecuted before civil courts. Some are still being prosecuted before courts Marshall. So now you've got a selective justice system but the civil courts just because we've got a military justice system doesn't mean the civil courts cease to function vis-a-vis members of the armed forces. And that brings us to independence. But before you get to independence, let me, for the benefit of viewers who may not be familiar either because they're not Americans or if they are Americans, they've never thought much about the military justices. Let me just give the counterpoint for the American system. As Rory implied, the military to be an effective fighting force has to be disciplined and the US armed forces are pervasively regulated. This is a pervasively regulated line of work where there are rules and regs covering everything everybody's evaluated regularly. It's an upper route system basically. And as a result, it's a system that has a complex web of sanctions, only some of which are what we classically think of as military justice, namely courts Marshall. But that's like, I think we just had the anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, didn't we? That's just the tip of the iceberg, forgive the expression. Because what has happened, and I think Rory suggested this, what has happened is there's less and less reliance on the classical court Marshall that we all know from the K mutiny and all of that stuff, but a few good men and more and more reliance on other kinds of sanctions, whether it's summary trials as they're known in Canada or non-judicial punishment and as they're known in the United States. And interestingly, the current numbers, even though the United States has an enormous military legal establishment, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of lawyers, we had something like, I think, 12 or 1300 general and special courts Marshall last year as opposed to something like 95,000 non-judicial punishments for various kinds of relatively minor offenses. So you have that set of sanctions and then you have a million other kinds of sanctions. If you act up, we're going to throw you out. If you act up, we're going to demote you. If you act up, we're not going to send you to medical school. If you act up, we're not going to let you fly the airplane and so on and so forth. Now on the question of the interaction can between the military legal structure and the civilian courts, just a word on that very briefly. In both countries, some military cases, and here I'm thinking of the criminal cases, the courts Marshall, are eligible to be taken to the Supreme Court of the country. And occasionally, as Rory mentioned, occasionally the Supreme Court of Canada and less occasionally the Supreme Court of the United States do find themselves dealing with questions of military law. Although they tend not to get into sort of technical arcane questions of military law. They tend to take the cases that have some generic constitutional or charter issues. The other thing is in some circumstances, a person can contest a court Marshall collaterally. And by that, I mean, if you're in confinement and the military has confinement facilities, prisons, the writ of habeas corpus is available, at least in the United States. Rory can correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine it's at least in theory possible in Canada. So you could have a military case wind up as a habeas corpus. It's just the way a state or provincial prisoner might wind up challenging a criminal conviction in the civilian courts. Let me stop there, because I know Rory's dying appropriately to talk about judicial independence, which is one of the major issues both systems are facing. So judicial independence is something that is tested frequently. And what I'm going to suggest is we can look even beyond the United States and Canada. It is something that has been recently tested in the United Kingdom. It is something that has been recently tested in Australia. It is something that has been tested recently in Canada and is about to be tested again before the Supreme Court of Canada with the appeal of the Queen and Edwards and others. And it's a matter that's been tested in the United States. What is interesting. The King and Edwards. True, it was the Queen and Edwards when it was tried at Court Marshall and before the Court Marshall Appeal Court. It is now the King and Edwards, although- All right, I'll be quiet. I'll be quiet now. The style is still yet to be determined because there's actually four separate streams of cases that have been collapsed together. And in fact, when they granted leave, there was just a big long list of cases that received a leave to appeal. It made it look like the Supreme Court of Canada had granted leave to a half a dozen cases and it was all the same thing. They're all gonna be grouped together. But Jean is right. Now it's the King and Edwards and others. The challenge that we have from a comparative perspective is that each country has dealt with these matters in slightly different ways and has slightly different laws, constitutional laws dealing with them, even though we all come from a common antecedent. And as Jean has mentioned, all of these nations, notwithstanding American exceptionalism, all of these countries, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand all have common law backgrounds. We all have manifested our armed forces in relatively similar fashion and we all have relatively similar military justice systems. There have been discrete differences. And I mentioned these countries because we're one to compare us to the continental systems, like in Germany, like in France. You would see market differences. And so really, and this is a very rough approximation, but generally speaking, the common law countries, so the Kenzakis countries to include the United States, so those five common law countries who often work cooperatively, all still have very robust military justice systems that function in parallel to the ordinary civil courts and often overlap. And where there is a broad application of military justice, even in peacetime, this can be contrasted. And again, it's a very rough approximation to the continental systems which increasingly apply their military law only during times of war or only during operations and do not generally apply it domestically and during peacetime. Now that's an extremely broad generalization, but France is a good example. France does not apply their disciplinary system within the borders of France during peacetime. They use their ordinary civil courts for that, whereas in Canada, we still apply courts-martial across the board, as in the United States, as in Australia. And what we've seen in these common law countries is slightly different evolution of the independence of their judiciary. And I'm gonna be daring, I'm gonna leave out New Zealand for the time being, but I'm going to suggest that there is a spectrum of independence with respect to the judiciary. And at the most independent end of the spectrum, I would suggest this is the United Kingdom because of recent reforms where they have made all of their military judges, civilians who serve under their judge advocate general who is actually a judge, he's the head of their judiciary. He's distinct from the judge advocate general in the United States and in Canada who's the head of the legal services for the armed forces or for a particular service. But the UK judge advocate general is the head of their military judiciary. And their judiciary are all civilians. I would then suggest that the next in line for independence would probably be Canada, closely followed by Australia. And at the, not at the other end of the spectrum, but perhaps the least independent judiciary are the American military judges. In large part because a big distinguishing feature between American military judges and Canadian military judges, they're serving officers. Our military judges are former legal officers. American military judges are legal officers who are now serving as military judges. The difference is once our legal officers are appointed as military judges, they stay military judges until they hit compulsory retirement age or choose to retire. American military judges are like what our military judges were conceptualized back in 1998 with Bill C-25. Because when we introduced Bill C-25, the anticipated role would be, military judges would be appointed for a five-year term and they could be renewed or they could return to being legal officers. Now, why anyone would return to being a legal officer when a military judge gets paid about $80,000 a year more and has a broad amount of independence and status. I'm not sure why anyone would conceptualize that somebody might return to being a legal officer. No, by the way, just to add a footnote. Note that a judge who has a relatively short term of office five years is relatively short for a judge. And as eligible for reappointment, is a judge who is likely to be looking over her shoulder? Oh, not just likely to be, very likely to be looking over his or her shoulder. I mean, that was the main point. So the independence of the military judges was challenged before the court martial appeal court of Canada in 2011 in a case called the Queen in Leblanc. Because it was still a queen then, Jean, in the Queen in Leblanc. And the court ruled that no, the five-year appointment process doesn't carry with it. The security of tenure that is required for independence. We have to remember across common law jurisdictions and even in mixed jurisdictions, the three requirements of independence of judges is security of tenure, security of remuneration and institutional independence. And without those three things, you can still be independent. And as I've often opined, independence is not a binary state, right? Independence is a sliding scale. And one of the most independent actors within any government setup will be judges because of those three criteria. The institutional independence, the security of tenure and the security of remuneration. You can still have people operating with a degree of independence. For example, the director of military prosecutions has a degree of independence. Does he have security of tenure to an extent because he's appointed to a four-year term, can be renewed, can only be removed from office through a mechanism under the National Defense Act. Does he have security of remuneration? Not really, he's paid the same thing as any other colonel or any other legal officer colonel. Does he have institutional independence? Again, a degree of institutional independence, but not much. And so our judges come reasonably close to being as independent as a civilian judge, certainly more so than they did in 2010. But there's still some underlying concerns because they are still subject as officers of the Canadian forces. They are subject to the Code of Service Discipline. We ran into a circumstance like that when the director of military prosecutions attempted and failed to prosecute the chief military judge. And there was a bit of a hue and cry over that. I would suggest, and here's the thing, I would suggest that as of the 20th of June, 2022, our military judges are less independent than they were before that date. And the reason for that is, under the old system that we used to have, Jean mentioned we have summary trials. We no longer have summary trials in Canada. We have summary hearings that are much more similar to the non-judicial punishment of the United States. Whereas in our summary trial system, you could elect trial by court martial for many of the offenses. Now they are completely separate processes. Summary hearings deal with service infractions. Courts martial deal with offenses. If you're charged with a service infraction, there is no election for court martial. Under the old system, our military judges were exempt from summary trials. They could not be tried by summary trial. They are not exempt from service infractions. So now we have a situation where not only could they be charged and tried under the code of service discipline when other select officers cannot. But conceptually, a military judge could be charged with a service infraction and tried by a superior commander like the deputy vice chief of defense staff. And among the penalties that are available to the deputy vice chief of defense staff, if he or she were to try a military judge would be things like a deprivation of pay which everyone else would call a fine but for some reason we can't call it a fine. But it would also include minor punishments which can include confinement to barracks. So you could conceivably have a military judge tried by a lay person and sentenced to confinement to barracks for up to two weeks, which is not unlike house arrest which is a deprivation of liberty. And I'm really waiting to see how director of military prosecutions will explain that that doesn't undermine the independence of a military judge and doesn't infringe section seven of the charter which guarantees all Canadians to be free from deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice. Rory, let me take a second and just recount the history that we've gone through. It's a somewhat different history. Traditionally, and this, in George III's time there were no military judges. Military judges are a relatively recent innovation but when they were first created and let's say that was 1968 in the United States we had something sort of like a judge before then starting in around 1920 but when they were first created in 1968 they were at will judges. They had no term of office, whatever they could be fired tomorrow or transferred to Guam, no offense to Guamanians but transferred someplace unattractive, let's say. Then there was a good deal of litigation I was involved in some of that challenging the lack of any term of office at all. I mean, if you really want to get down to the heart of the matter, it's the term of office the pay is secondary and the institutional independence that's nice but a term of office is the heart of the judicial independence in my judgment. There was litigation that it was a deprivation of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution to be tried in a criminal case which could impose a death penalty or life in prison by a judge who had no protection at all and the Supreme Court of the United States said no problem, you don't worry about that because in 1787 when our Constitution developed at the convention in Philadelphia there were no military judges, so what's the problem? Anyway, eventually the US Army decided maybe there's something to this and they passed a regulation giving judges a term of office that it had all kinds of outs if it was the convenience of the service that we needed you doing something else to be the assistant Coca-Cola machine officer, that was okay but it was a mere regulation and worse yet not all the services went along with that that was only the Army then the Coast Guard went along that's a tiny little service and the Navy Marine Corps and Air Force refused to go along and that lasted for several years and then finally, finally, finally Congress said wait a minute, we're going to impose a requirement then they directed the president to issue a regulation in what we call the manual for courts martial that would create a term of office so what's the term of office? Three years and I'm here to tell you three years is too short to give meaningful independence to a judge and worse yet, it's renewable so you really have a problem I'll just give you my personal take on this I've come to conclude that the norm ought to be the period of the term of office that's provided to relatively low level federal judges in the United States what we call magistrate judges and by statute Congress has long given those judges an eight year term of office which strikes me as reasonable and the kind of thing that would cause the office to be pretty independent which is all you can ask I mean you could even put aside independence I would suggest three years is too short a term to even learn how to do your job effectively Oh, that's true Yeah Forget independence and if we're looking at postings, I'll take Guam just so you know Jean, I'll take Guam if that's up in the offerings but I mean that's part of the challenge You're going to get a lot of hate mail for this by the way Especially since this is being broadcast in Hawaii I know The when we're talking about judges and one of the challenges we've got and I see and I wrote about this so Jean and I both contributed to a book called Marching to Justice which was edited by a couple of colleagues of ours an American colleague Frank Rosenblatt and now Deep Singh an Indian colleague of ours it's a wonderful book that covers justice systems from around the world and both Jean and I contributed and the contribution that I made talked a little bit about how in Canada we've never really struggled adequately forget I answered the question we've never really struggled until now because I anticipate the Supreme Court of Canada will struggle with this in the King and Edwards but we've never really struggled with what exactly are military judges and it's a question that has been answered in the United States and it has been answered in Australia in relatively similar fashion frankly in both of those countries and the reason I mentioned these three countries is we have a lot in common constitutionally all three countries are federal regimes with both national and sub national governments we have a constitution that divides the powers between the national and sub national level the difference actually between the three countries Canada in that regard is the outlier because in the United States residual powers rest with the states in Australia residual powers rest with the states in Canada residual powers do not rest with the provinces they rest with the federal government our criminal law in Canada is enforced it's prosecuted provincially but it's enacted federally whereas in Australia in the United States criminal law or penal law is enacted in the States so there are distinctions in the United States and Australia their apex courts have very clearly ruled that courts marshal in the military judges presiding over them are not what I would characterize as ordinary courts or ordinary judges they are not part of the judicial branch of government so in the United States they are very clearly and Jean can correct me if I'm wrong I'm not an American constitutional scholar even though proximity has forced me to learn a little bit about the American constitution you're playing one on TV I am right now so the courts marshal in military judges are what can be characterized as article one judges they are not article three judges which is the separate judiciary in the same vein in Australia military judges are not what they call chapter three judges they are not part of the judicial branch that question has been answered relatively definitively in Australia and the United States it has not been answered in Canada it hasn't even been asked they've danced around it so in general they danced around that question in Stillman they danced around that question and I would suggest that in Edwards which will be heard sometime in the next 12 to 18 months whether it's heard by seven judges eight judges or nine judges is yet to be determined but in Edwards the court is going to be forced to address whether or not military judges actually belong to the judicial branch or are part of the executive and that makes all the difference in the world I want to ask you a question sure I want to shift the focus here for a minute to Parliament and we'll get to Congress as well but what's the deal in you know everybody complains about their legislature that's you know in every in every democratic country that's the thing about having a democracy you get to complain about you get to complain and nobody shoots you right right right and nobody arrests you so what's the role of Parliament how does Parliament view its role with respect to the administration of military justice and I have a specific question in mind does Parliament ever try to influence the administration administration of justice in specific military cases so I'll break that down into two questions because you've actually asked me two questions so what's the role of Parliament and what's the role that Parliament sees for itself and I would suggest those are two markedly different questions it wasn't a trick question but you give me a trick answer but that's Gene probably because you don't know the obstinance of our Prime Minister well I won't get into the politics of it but what I will say is this in any Westminster styled Parliamentary democracy which excludes you splitters in the United States right you decided you didn't want a king that's too bad you don't get one so in in in Westminster styled Parliamentary democracies Parliament is supreme which a lot of people don't understand because they think well we've got the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we've got the Constitution but at the end of the day there is an amending formula the Constitution can be changed it would be changed by Parliament Parliament is supreme it is Parliament that legislates it is the executive branch that governs that administers and unlike in the United States and unlike in republics our executive is drawn from Parliament in part so our executive is His Majesty the King in concert with His Majesty's privy councillors the cabinet the executive the governor and council and that's where you get governor and council from it's the sovereign in council with His Majesty's privy councillors so Parliament being supreme holds the executive accountable conceptually in theory in a Westminster styled Parliamentary democracy Parliament decides whether or not the government carries on because the government must command the confidence of Parliament now if you're elected with a majority government odds are you're going to command the confidence of Parliament in fact even if you're elected to a minority government and one of the opposition parties doesn't have much of a spine you're probably going to command the confidence of the House and granted I am getting a little bit political there but that distinguishes us from the United States because of the the clear separation between the executive and the legislature there are a number of other distinctions but that's a huge distinction because at the end of the day the command of the armed forces of Canada by virtue of our Constitution the Constitution Act 1867 section 15 vests command of the armed forces of Canada in the sovereign so it's the crown that exercises not really the crown uh not really the governor and council but the crown itself has vested command in the armed forces now that's generally exercised by the minister of national defense because under the national defense act by virtue of section four the minister has direction and authority over all aspects of national defense and again by virtue of our Constitution Act 1867 section 91 sub seven grants Parliament the authority to legislate for the militia the military and naval forces and for defense right and so our constitutional construct vests the authority of command in the sovereign but the legislative authority within Parliament and then Parliament has legislated to grant the minister of national defense the authority to govern the Canadian forces let me let me give you let me give you a a for instance okay that's very much on my mind and I think Americans tomorrow morning they're going to pick up the paper or go online and they're going to read about this we it's not a military justice matter but it is a matter uh that has to do with the role of Congress uh as everybody knows uh former president Trump is uh facing criminal proceedings particularly in Manhattan New York County New York and the district attorney there Alvin Bragg uh has been subjected to pressure by Republicans in the House of Representatives uh suggesting that he shouldn't be investigating or seeking an indictment from a grand jury in New York uh of former president Trump is that is anything like that conceivable in Canada not really in that regard because the big concern there and there were other concerns raised about Trump when he was present you know because he's the commander-in-chief right and there were things that were being done by him and certainly General Milley was placed in a couple of awkward positions uh that that he eventually dealt with relatively well quite frankly um but our commander-in-chief is not the prime minister and our commander-in-chief as I say is technically the sovereign or in Canada's case the representative of the sovereign the governor general so command of our armed forces is vested not in the head of our government uh the prime minister it's vested in the head of state the sovereign or the sovereign's representative the governor general and that's one of the things that draws a distinction because our head of state performs a largely ceremonial function whereas in the United States you have MPs or members of the the Senate of Canada uh who pick up the phone or send letters to the minister saying you got a kill list case uh there have been I will suggest to you that there have been members of parliament and there have been senators who have attempted to influence what I'll say more broadly speaking is statutory decision making which includes code of service discipline but not just statutory decision making in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian forces it doesn't go very far and it doesn't go very far because at the end of the day the the um chief of the defense staff by virtue of section 18 of the National Defense Act has control and administration of the Canadian forces the chief of defense staff isn't going to worry about what an MP says the chief of the defense staff is going to worry about what the minister says because the chief of the defense staff is accountable to the minister the minister is thereby accountable to parliament that's how parliament holds um decision makers accountable is they hold the minister accountable in parliament right in committee uh and so if an MP writes a letter trying to influence a case it's just not going to go anywhere it's not all that controversial in Canada because if the director of military prosecution gets a letter from member of parliament for kicking horse pass uh the director of military prosecutions is just going to ignore it because there's nothing that can be done well I think Ken we've probably identified a few things that we'll have to put on the table for a further discussion because yeah as you can see Rory and I'll keep going here until we uh you know uh until nightfall well I I was interested in trying to steer you into some uh parent issues you know in in Canada you've got sexual misconduct same here and and key people you know key generals being kicked out of their job because of allegations of sexual conduct you know nothing proven you know in fact we've got a general and Rory correct me if I'm wrong but a general making a lawsuit against the federal government for abusing him without due process yeah I'm not going to comment too much and that's that's Major General Danny Fortain I'm not going to comment too much on his lawsuit there's a lot that could be said I won't venture too much into that what I will say is he's brought an action for damages that is broadly within the context of public law decision making that is not an easy thing to do and and I'll leave it there because I know the lawyers who are representing him they're very capable lawyers um and and you had mentioned that some general officers have have been removed from their jobs because of mere allegations without prosecution I mean that cuts pretty close to home since one of them was a client of mine and and that's not you know a secret or anything but there have been a series of decisions made where individuals have suffered some fairly significant repercussions where there has not been any determination by anything remotely looking like a court and in fact Danny Fortain is relatively unique among the general officers who stood accused because he actually had his day in court and and that case what I don't think I overstepped the balance by saying that case imploded um there were some significant defects in the evidence that was presented by um by the the complainant uh and indeed it appears that the the version that the complainant testified to in court was markedly different than what she told the military police uh which is why that case imploded I'll just ask for one comment uh the the problem the the situation of senior officers flag and general officers is really uh there's an irony to it because on the one hand if you ask the people in the barracks or in the pipe racks on the ships uh they'll tell you that there are different spanks for different ranks and the generals and admirals get away with murder and uh whereas enlisted personnel or junior officers get hammered on the other hand it's a practical matter if you're an admiral or a general in my opinion and speaking really about the situation in the united states where we have a lot of admirals and generals uh these are effectively effectively political appointments and if the management decides that they have lost trust and confidence in you you're toast you will simply be asked to retire and there is a cudgel that the management has which is they can do what's called a grade determination and instead of retiring as a lieutenant general you'll retire as a major general or less all right well that gives each of you a chance to say the last few words how about rory uh do you shoot first since it's you're from the superior country well what i'll say is what i'll say is this can uh much as churchill proclaimed uh that the united kingdom in the united states um were two countries divided by a common language uh one could say the same about the united states and canada as two countries divided by relatively common military justice systems um there is much more that is similar about our our countries uh and our military justice systems and i would suggest in large part because of similar cultures uh similar antecedents for our legislative regimes and for our military traditions um and the devil is in the details those nuanced distinctions that can help us learn about our own system by examining how those distinctions function in a parallel country uh and and that for me as a comparative analyst and as a comparative scholar is is where the gold mine is that's where that's where we can we can really examine um how our own systems uh can evolve for the better is is in examining those nuanced differences i can't improve on that no i can't improve on that rory's hit the nail on the thumb all right well thank you very much and uh the show uh think that can think tech hawaii it can be um seen on a variety of platforms and uh i've enjoyed very much having two esteemed scholars uh to discuss the subject that i knew very little about but uh uh certainly the two of you have done a masterful job thank you so much for watching think tech hawaii if you like what we do please like us and click the subscribe button on youtube and the follow button on vimeo you can also follow us on facebook instagram and linked in and donate to us at think.kawaii.com mahalo


Díky, měli vědět, že se vám přijde do týstvě hlavní projekty. Máte v 2016. Máte Martinděcký. Toto průjtě by to bylo přednout jako běhrmář. Ale závědět, že byl jim jim jim jim závěd. Tady návědět. Není se nezávědět, ale je to nejvědět, můžete se na to závodit, aby se to závodit. Takže můžete mít, když můžete vzítiť v závodit. Můžete mít, že to než největného kvalitáho důležitou. Takže, můžete to závodit. Předmým vždym v těch technikách, můžete mít, že se však vykáváš. Však můžete mít, že se to závodit. Jsou u罩ny vnětní vězky, to jsou hlavníka, kteří tu diskrétu, a je je nejlepší genulální náčel. Toto je proti vědětní škoda, mikroekerno-multiřchávo dát vyvnít a hlávnit z okazí. A jste pod nevědětným vězeem a také hlavníků na naše netle. Máli se na hlavníku. Let's dig a little bit deeper. So open-source means that our own code, the bulk of the code base, has the BSD license, the new BSD license, and we also use some third party components, which we don't link directly to, but which we use indirectly, which are under GPL. Generally purpose, that means that we don't want to be biased towards když na výstředku, nebo na výstředku, nebo na výstředku, nebo na výstředku, nebo na výstředku, nebo na výstředku, nebo na výstředku. Vy moc tady se střeba, že je zvukovat závodný, desktubovat embadité systemy, jako na výstředku nebo na výstředku. Multiplatform. Pozražujeme než tedy svoje hrátvě hodinou. To je všechno. Alež to vám se vzluv Frutist. Máte vědět, že vlastně máte vás 8 arhidáčů, když je 7. To je, protože jsme vytvořili jednu. Vytvořili jsme vyspárný V8, 32-bitný vyspárný variant, protože jsme vyspárný vyspárný vyspárný vyspárný vyspárný vyspárný vyspárný vyspárný vyspárný.  Je to dividená na velkou některéjstváné Ichakosí a úplnité dní vždy. Protože se v tom, že je partner-obstrakci na zvuku je všechno ziličné. Je to když 10-15 % dnes s tím, že jsme vůbec skládili kód, jak se陳 750 km vyskávodné. A to se pěkná, když se jizbo se dělá, když je to celý komponent do stíli, až se je to zvuk, když je to dozvuk, když je to dozvuk. Takže se když je to dozvuk, když je to dozvuk, když je to dozvuk, když je to dozvuk. One note, for example, the networking is also decomponentized, so basically if you know the networking reference model, the physical layer, link layer, transport layer and so on, this is exactly the way how our networking stack is structured physically, so there is a separate component, separate task running in isolation from the other tasks. In the networking stack for each of the networking layer. Just to give you some rough idea, in total this is really not just the kernel, but in total this is the size of the code base, this is some rough estimate of the work effort. Of course this is totally wrong, because the basic code command model is not really suited for systems or systems software, but it can give you some idea. And except of let's say 6 to 8 core developers, this has been developed in the course of some 24 master phases, 4 bachelor phases, 11 Google Summer of Code projects and so on. So yeah, I should really mention our contributors here, because we are eternally thankful for them. Ok, now you might think these are some crazy people who are just trying to reinvent the wheel, and this has no sense of really giving any attention. Let me explain it from a different perspective. The legacy operating systems, of course they are working quite well, I would say, but their designs and APIs are in many cases broken, insecure. At the very least they are morally obsolete. And that doesn't necessarily mean that everything is wrong with Linux, or that there is no hope of taking inspiration in principles or implementations that have been around for many years. I have spoken about this topic two years back. But many things can be designed in a better way with current software engineering standards and principles by thinking out of the box, by not implementing yet another Unix, by not trying to reinventing Linux or creating new Linux. And also if I can slightly separate from my respected colleagues, from other micro kernel systems, we also think that it's important that we write the bulk of our system core components ourselves, that we don't import drivers from Linux using some driver device driver kits or ramp kernels or whatever, because we are really afraid of franken components. We don't want them. We want our components to suit our architecture, not to somehow glue them together using adaptation layers. If you don't get my idea, I'll show you these three pictures and let them sync for a few seconds. So we don't want this. We want a nicely designed and engineered operating system. OK, let's move on. There's also another issue with borrowing components from other systems, which we would like to avoid, and that's the maintenance burden of these fork components. So once you fork something, which is external, you basically create what Jakupier Marsch calls software for sale. So it's a snapshot of the code, which the upstream is no longer required to maintain or to update. You are required to do it, and this creates the possibility of you forgetting or not managing to backport, security fixes, new features. Sometimes you have to deal with diverging licenses and all these kinds of stuff. So the Helenos mainline, the microkernel and the core components, they are always fresh. They are always working in sync, and they don't age, while the Helenos coastline repository, which contains the ported software I have spoken about, they tend to do this. This for us really shows the difference between creating the system in our own image and porting some franken components from other systems. Because the franken components, they don't follow our basic development principle to design something, then implement it, then run some verification tests on it, and then reiterating by learning from our own mistakes. Let me do a short intermezzo here. We would really like to cross-pollinate. I think we try every time we can. So last year, Jakub Jermáš has created this website, microkernel.info, and the idea behind it is really to join our forces with our fellow microkernel friends with other projects. It has been inspired by the way by the website unikernel.org from the unikernel community, and the purpose is the same. So it basically lists in alphabetical order the currently alive and progressing microkernel operating systems. Everybody can be included. I mean, there are no hard criteria for being accepted. There's just a brief overview of each of the systems and a link. Of course, the unikernel guys, they went already a little bit further, so their unikernel.org website also contains some tutorials and some other helpful materials. We can also have it. We can also move in that direction. No problem with that. Nobody just did it. So again, your input from everyone here is more than welcome. Really, the purpose is to create some quasi-neutral ground for our own microkernel advocacy. Of course, it won't be totally neutral ever because everybody is somehow involved in some of these systems more or less, but we can at least try. And if I can even say so, we have also the common enemy, right? So we can join forces. Well, I was really more like a joke, but I mean, I would say that we are more friends with the unikernel guys than we are with the monolithic kernel guys. Let's put it in that way. So again, please, any contributions are welcome. And the other suggestion for cross-pollination, we have already discussed this in the mailing list of this dev room. We would really like to apply for this year's Google Summer of Code as a number organization. I mean, Helen West has some experience in Google Summer of Code. We have been accepted three times and we were quite successful in GSOC. We weren't accepted five times, but still Google Summer of Code is very, at least we see it as a very valuable thing for a niche software project, because it really widens the awareness or spreads the awareness of the project more than anything else, I would say. So the ratio between the acceptance and non-acceptance, we don't know why we were accepted in these years and weren't accepted in those years. I mean, obviously our application was consistent. We didn't just screw up in the other years. Everybody knows that Google is not sharing its internal criteria for accepting projects into GSOC, so we don't know what's the problem for them. But we think, or at least we have a hypothesis, that one issue might be that there is simply just an abundance, that there are too many operating system projects in general, applying for GSOC. I mean, there is Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Illumos, all you can have it, and probably they don't quite distinguish between the monolithic systems and micro-canon systems. So maybe, and I really believe that we should at least try, even if we don't succeed, an umbrella organization for all micro-canon systems might help in this way. So we had already some, I would say, positive feedback from some other guys. So if somebody wants to add something to it here, let's discuss it here or during the dinner, just think about some of the technicalities. So the deadline of the application is approaching quickly. We can manage it, but we have to really agree on this sooner than later. So first question is, who should fill in the application? Are there any volunteers? So we are volunteering. We have some experience, so we can give it a try. I mean, obviously we won't do it like copy-pasting for our own application, but we will try to give it some twist. Again, an input is more than welcome. Where the idea page for this organization should be hosted? I really think that the micro-canon.info is the perfect place to host it. Again, please do send us your topics, your ideas for GSOC if you want to be included. I mean, the more topics, the better. That's probably the key. If you need some inspiration, I can send you links to our previous ideas pages, even from those years that we were really accepted, so you can see some working example. And the last question I would really like to ask here to my colleagues, should we discourage individual applications from the individual projects? What's your opinion on that? Anybody who wants to join this, if it's okay or not? We haven't planned to, I think we have tried once or twice, but they rejected it for reasons that I don't know. Nobody knows. So we did not consider to apply another client. I would like to know your experience about, you say that it's very valuable for renaissance, so I would like to know how sustainable is the attack. Obviously, Uber is paying money for people working on specific topics, but that's just a kind of one shot of money. But the question is, does it suffice to ignite the interest of those people, so that they stick to the project, or do they just do this kind of three months of work and then they disappear magically? I would say the investment of mentoring is not so efficient, because it has not a sustainable effect. So that's your experience. So my experience, there are two layers in your question. The one layer is whether it is worth the short-term investment. I would say still yes, because the usual, at least in our case, the usual GSOC project creates roughly the same amount of code as a master thesis. But a master thesis can take a year or two years to be finished and sometimes even never gets finished. In GSOC, the same amount of work gets done by the student in three months. So if it succeeds, it's quicker. If it fails, it's also quicker. So from that point of view, I would say it's worth the investment but you probably also do some supervisor master thesis from time to time, so you know what I'm talking about. And about the long-term, whether it really ignites some students to stay with the community, I would say the return ratio is not very high. In our case, it's something like 10% to 20% of the students. But it's still more than zero, meaning that these students or these people would not know about us without participating in GSOC. So it's net benefit still. Even if it's just marginal, it's a net benefit. So I mean, if this should fly, all that is needed is to come up with, I don't know, four interesting projects from each of the participating projects under this umbrella, which is probably not so hard. I mean, you should probably have some ideas flying around for other purposes. So just putting them in some shape that is somehow acceptable might take, I don't know, two, three hours. We will see. Of course, I cannot guarantee anything, but I really think we should try. And if I may answer to my own question, I think we should not discourage the individual projects for applying still because, I mean, we don't know what the Google's criteria are, so they might see it as a problem that they are trying to have more stakes in the ballot or maybe not. We will see. We can't try in two years in advance in different settings and hope that we are not fighting in Oracle, which changes every time. I mean, we can just try. So if somebody is in, please email me or email Jakub, we will just make it happen somehow. And everybody is welcome. Don't get me wrong. I like this idea because you mentioned the cost for the nation. Yes. And so far, I think, after all these years, this really hasn't happened so much between our projects. We had once this kind of project there, the Spark, the Spark and Tunelbust, or to get out to know, or at least attempted. So I like this as a chance to bridge between the projects in some way. This is not even necessary. I mean, the AMBRA organization is really something that covers multiple individual projects. I mean, GNU is doing that. And GNU is participating in GSOC in many years as AMBRA organization for various GNU-related or even GNU-unrelated projects. So this is just a single organization that supports. I think, so I'm with the Patcher Software Foundation, and I think I really agree with your point. So what a lot of times happens is Google Summer of Code looks for formal organizations. So it can basically, and I don't know why, maybe it's because they like how the money is managed or they guarantee that it won't be some random people or whatever, but if you have a nonprofit in the United States, it's actually much easier to get your projects accepted. On top of that, again, in ASF, the trick is that ASF always gets accepted because we're to the front of the known open source organizations. And then you can basically have as many projects within the ASF umbrella as you want. So it's actually very beneficial. That's my point exactly. So perhaps we should skip this discussion to the offline time, but I just wanted to show this here. And again, everybody's welcome. So now let's move to the real status update of HLEN OS. We are talking about the year of the fire monkey, which somehow coincides with the period from last for them to this year's for them. So that works nicely. Some general observation. There is slightly less activity on our side than in previous years, mostly because the core contributors are somehow distracted now, me included, so we don't have so much time to contribute to HLEN OS. Also, there are much less students, so we didn't participate in Google Summer Code, we didn't participate in ESA Summer of Code in Space, and there were only two master phases running compared to, say, six or eight in the previous years. And I would say we are somehow plateauing. Really, this is the key message here. Of course, I cannot claim that HLEN OS is perfect and finished. That will never happen, but it's finished from some perspective that we don't lack any major subsystem now, so we have networking, we have sound, we have USB, you name it. So there is no big chunk of code totally missing, so we are more switching into the phase of optimizations, refactoring, and so on, and that's probably not so attractive to many people. That's my explanation why the output is smaller. This can be also illustrated on our traditional HLEN OS camp, which is our hackathon, which has been done since 2005. So not so long as the OpenBSD's hackathon, but also for a long time. And this year only some three developers participated. There were some overlaps, but on average three, so this is quite poor, but we managed to implement something. So what we are currently working on, or what has been done recently, I was hoping to make a release before FOSDEM, but then Jakub fell ill and I had to write those slides and so on, so I didn't manage, but I might manage tomorrow, so it might be a FOSDEM release. So we have done some improvements on our Spark 64 support for Sun4U hardware. This has been jointly done with parallel developments in QMU, so we are very... It's hard to quantify, but we are somehow close to be really able to run HLEN OS on Sun4U in QMU S on physical hardware. This has been linked with somehow generalizing our user space zero console code. So previously there were different ways how to use user space zero console on different platforms, but this has been somehow unified. We have a simple installer, which is non-interactive, maybe a little bit dangerous. It tries to not to overwrite anything on your local hard drive, but I will still not really run it without consideration, and it's basically a first step into really deploying HLEN OS as a permanent operating system. So it currently targets QMU and works on these two platforms. But it includes a reproducible build of GRUB. So we are pushing this idea that our builds should be reproducible, that you should be able to run a single command on any platform, on any guest system, and this single command should create the same binaries, the same composition of components and so on. And of course the GRUB is one of the components that we don't link to, but we use it as a bootloader. So we build it also. Finally we have USB 2.0 support that has been in writing for three or four years, because one of the original offers of our USB stack decided that he would like to rewrite it completely and he's more or less did with some input from us. So it not only enables USB 2.0, but it also opens a much easier path to USB 3.0 and so on. We have optimized our processing of hardware interrupts in user space drivers. Originally there might have been a large overhead if the device was generating too many interrupts in a single unit of time, because each of the interrupts was translated to an IPC message and for each of this IPC message a new worker fibril was always created and then disposed, which created the overhead. So now it works in much more optimized way. Basically it's coalescing the calls somehow so that the worker fibrils do not have to be created and destroyed every time. There is again much more to do here. Some fibril pooling might help even in different workloads. We have improved our dynamic linking, especially with respect to the threat local storage handling and we finally have dynamic linking enabled by default on AA32. So if you compile HLNOS for x86 it will be created dynamically linked binaries will be created by default now. Another small improvement, which is somehow related with the threat local storage for a very long time from the early beginning of HLNOS we had this ugly special syscall for setting the TLS base address on x86 and on AMD64 basically because this sets the FS or GS register the selector, which is then used as the pointer for the base address for the threat local storage and this cannot be done or this was not possible to be done for a user space so there had to be some way how to deal with it and we really didn't like it of course.  So our current solution is to have a different configuration of the threat local storage that can live with a static configuration of the GS and FS segments and only a pointer in this threat local storage structure needs to be changed and then this is used as the basic address for the threat local area. There is even a better solution we have discussed it with Yakub Miermas how to do it in an even more elegant way there are these two new instructions since IV bridge which can be used to set these two registers or not these two registers but basically the values of the segments or the base addresses of the segments from user space of course on older CPUs this does not work so how to do it in a generic way well it can be emulated so if the kernel receives an exception that there is an invalid instruction and it's this particular instruction it just can be emulated in theory it works nicely and it's elegant but the performance is worse than our current implementation so we are still thinking about what should we do with that and of course we have been doing like I already said a lot of coder factoring we have fixed many bugs that have been discovered by verification tools we are still on the bleeding edge of the GCC tools chain and we have helped to discover a regression 2M270 on ARM risk 5 I know I have promised that this should be ready in 36 hours last year and frankly I really didn't spend 36 hours to do it so it's still not there is some skeleton code in the mainline so at least you can try whether the risk 5 compiler is still compiling the sources but it's still not it's booting but it's not doing anything past the initial kernel initialization if I may have one small excuse for that they have been some changes in the previous specification of risk 5 during the year and they have been also changes in the spike simulator which is something like a reference implementation of the risk 5 platform and some of these changes were not explicitly tracked and documented so it was really a bad surprise that you compile the code run it and then you have to debug it for an hour to really understand what went wrong why it's not working as it used to work a week ago and two final items I would like to mention a little bit in more detail it's a service manager and user space pages so we have where is he there he is, Michal Koutný my former master student who implemented the service manager for HALAN OS as his master thesis so I have already mentioned the term micro services so naturally micro kernel multi server operating system is composed of services but this is an overloaded term so we are talking about the system services now like the micro kernel servers and there are also logical services like if you run an HTTP server I don't know NFS server on your machine that's a different kind of service not necessarily tied to the architecture of the operating system so this service manager for HALAN OS tries to combine these two entities somehow together so to have a unified look on the micro kernel services and on the logical services it is remotely inspired by framework or system please don't kill me let's move on so basically there are two new components one is doing the dependency resolving so it basically starts and stops the logical services according to some dependencies these dependencies can be either explicit so they can be specified in a configuration file in some declarative way similar to what you might know from other system management frameworks and of course there are those implicit dependencies that are built from the architecture of the composition of the micro kernel services so this is basically for more or less for free because it used to work without this new component previously now it's just integrated into into one package and there are some unit types individual service instances that can be either a service meaning a process a mount point a configuration or a target and then there is the taskman service which basically is monitoring the life cycle of the services and provides and monitoring API so it manages the logical relationship between the physical processes because there is no such thing in HLEN OS as a parent and child process so this has to be created this has to be created a new and this service can later be used for restarting for example if a service fails or something like that so it's dependency part and life cycle part and the final implementation piece that has been done is are the user space pages this is one thing that in which HLEN OS architecture differs from I would say most of the more family operating systems which really focus on removing all memory management from the kernel except the privilege parts like accessing the page tables and managing the TLB in HLEN OS we have decided to have a different approach to have a slightly more traditional architecture of the memory management with a kernel frame allocator a kernel heap allocator which is a slap allocator by the way and virtual address space manager it's still mostly mechanisms so there are almost no policies in the kernel except maybe some basic algorithms like single fit and so on our motivation for doing or for implementing memory management in this way was that we believe that it's still a single point of failure so even if we push it out into user space the kernel would not survive even for its own purposes if the memory management service or the memory management server would fail in user space so in that case we don't see a major point for not having this in the kernel itself because usually there were three address space area back ends for mapping physical memory for devices because also the kernel needs to have support to the hardware at least for the timer then for anonymous memory that basically is used to give memory to the user space tasks and for mapping elf binaries because the kernel during bootstrap needs to run some initial it needs to be able to access that structure in some structured intelligent way and now there is another backend which can forward page faults to user space basically so the current implementation is really quite straight forward there is a task that needs to access some memory which is being provided by some other user space task and it can be anything it can be for example the virtual file system providing memory map files so each of these tasks has its virtual memory map in the kernel and first the new address space area is created by the client and it's a special kind of virtual memory area with that user user pager then this creates a dedicated IPC connection to the server and the server creates its internal representation of this client of this request then if the client accesses the memory touches the memory within that area that needs to be served by the pager it naturally creates a page fault and this page fault is forwarded to the pager as an IPC message while the pager is blocked and now the pager asks the kernel to give the client some part of its address space so it basically answers the IPC call by this return value says that it's okay to provide the memory to the client and supplies its virtual address of the piece of memory that it wants to provide this virtual memory is then translated to the physical address by the kernel and this physical address is then mapped to the client and the client is woken up and that's it now this this dot or this page is alias to this page so it's a really quite straightforward implementation we have some additional ideas how to make it in a more generic way in the future but just for the purpose of implementing memory mapped files this works pretty nicely so any plans for this year for the year of the fire rooster we have some research papers in the pipeline we would like to finish them and submit them I would really like to finish the risk five port we have ongoing cooperation with the CZNIC that's the check national domain registry they have this nice project called tourist omnia you might have heard about it even on last for them and this for them so it's basically a very well designed home or small office router and we would really like to fine tune LNOS on this particular piece of hardware and then start some interesting collaboration with them we would like to switch to be a new release cycle just because we are no longer interface that we are waiting for this major subsystem to be written that major subsystem to be written it's probably easier to take inspiration from the genome guys where they're simply release often with new small perhaps smaller updates and we have already done some IPC optimizations and again now it's time to really dig in deeper and to for example implement some weight free algorithms to improve the overhead and so on so that's basically all from me thank you very much for attention and if there are any questions I will be happy to answer them and we can still discuss the GSOC stuff if there is some interest maybe later thank you


My name is Sophie Helpilius. In 2009, my son Philip died as a result of youth violence in a blink of an eye who was gone and his dreams taken with him. He had just turned 20. One punch can kill.


Welcome to the rundown. New this week, the Navy announced changes to the 2018 Aviation Department Head Retention Bonus, Aviation Command Retention Bonus, and Aviation Incentive Pay for both active duty and reserve sailors. The bonus was designed to retain highly talented, hardworking naval aviators and naval flight officers who choose to remain on active duty. ADH-RB shifted its eligibility timeline, and aviators can now choose between a 3- or 5-year contract. ACRB shifted from a 2-year $36,000 contract to a 3-year $100,000 contract. For AVIB, the Navy expanded rates for aviators who screen and serve in Carrero Milestone Billings. To help sailors better understand the changes, a blog was written to answer specific questions you may have. The blog goes in depth on the major changes, the reason for the changes, effective dates, and more. Find the blog on Navy Live. Also find more information at navadmin065-18 on NPC. The Navy's transformational change in how we conduct personnel business from evaluations to pay and detailing is well underway. Check out Vice Admiral Robert Burke's status update titled, Growing to Win, Sailor 2025, by clicking the CNP commentary on the CNP homepage. Sailors now have access to over a quarter million free e-books and audio books on the Navy's general library programs, MWR Overdrive site. On the site, sailors can find many popular titles and books on the CNO's professional reading program. This is an electronic library, which means there are a limited number of licenses for any particular title. If the book is unavailable at the time, sailors will go on a waiting list and will be notified by email when their book becomes available. You can get more information on the MWR Overdrive site by reading the story on navy.mil, which lists the top five things to know about getting free e-books. That's all for this week. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter at USNPeople and check out the Sailor to Sailor podcast on CNP's website. For any questions, send us a message at usnpeople.fct and navy.mil. For the Chief Naval Personnel, I'm MC2 L.J. Burleson. Thanks for watching.


And so I had my criteria back then. My criteria was really basic. It was like I was attracted to them, they had a college education, and they came from a good home. That was my criteria. I mean, this is sincere. I like that was the criteria. And when I finally met someone who fit that bill, we ended up getting married.  There was a lot of things missing in our relationship because I only had those three criteria, but it made it easy to find someone. And there's more to the story than that. The challenge with those of us in midlife for so many men who have gone through divorce, in particular, have had unhappy experiences, they don't know what they want. And by the way, ladies, you're in the same boat as well. You're in the same boat as well. Women come to me for private coaching.


Going on everyone Sam here with late in sports cards. We're doing a re-ripping 22 peninenti football hobby four box full case break number 98 random division style So look again at your random results as always you can find those on the website under the results tab as well as the link in chat So good luck everybody. Let's do it Michael L taking the Saints were down to four four to go everybody on Flawless falcons Packers Jets Titans four to go Four to go everyone breaks next Four to go All right, let's do NT. Here we go. See something here. Guess what I pulled last night. No trash 24-way treasure chest, but it was from last year and it was like There was like Brady and Montana and Steve young and blah blah blah blah blah and they're all game used really Yep All game used. Yeah, we send hit list packs Kelly we send hit list packs to everybody if you don't get a single card in your break I've got a redemption Let's start off with a Kyle Pitts energy south to 99 Right as you said that. Oh, no, that is Peyton Manning AFC south to 35 AFC south nice one here two color and three color Damian Pierce Yeah I know I think I remember you telling me that when I wore this shirt once never seen it Well, it was I got it at Lids because it was on sale. It was like $10 Right five of ten Josh Palmer three color three color AFC West NFC south terrace Marshall Jr. 12 of 25 three color patch Bring back the Spose hat. I'll throw the Spose hat back in the rotation. I got a couple of I got two Spose hats now I'll throw it back in the rotation I'm slowly but surely getting through all the ones I haven't worn yet every time I wear one It goes to another area in my house of all the ones I've worn on stream and then I just continuously like keep wearing the ones I haven't worn in a while and then once I'm run out of those and we'll just then all of the hats that are in The new area will go back to the old area and we'll just go back and forth Thomas taking a tiered Contender spot. Thank you, buddy. Time to tend to go on that now I Do I do have a bill set I do Joe burrow to 99 AFC north You knew Cliff bar was gonna come in I was telling him I was telling Cliff bar on what was it Monday morning. Maybe I was like, yeah We got a troll Sean when he comes in for that one Yeah, Brock birdies in this he's not I mean he has an auto in the other one It's not a rookie though. That is the Marvin Lee out to 99 AFC north. That's one there God's AFC east as you like this one Mark Dupre 48 of 99 Dupre. Yes, sir That's sir as you do 24 of 32 NFC west weird is gonna be Tyrion Davis price. That's really weird Huh, that's interesting. This is going to the AFC north rookie jumbo prime signatures booklet George Pickens So that should be number to 10. I believe I'll double check that but that's we I have never seen a George Pickens redemption in this yet Panini national treasures checklist. That is very odd No, so that'll be numbered out of 99 because it's not like any sort of Like Material or anything it's not laundry tag shield brand logo football So on and so AFC north That's well, like I said, I've not seen a Pickens or he has been live and everything in this Which is like shocking for him. That doesn't do doesn't sign anything Too busy getting ejected You should that means he should have time though because he gets ejected again four to go now everybody on flawless Falcons Packers jets and Titans four to go all marked down Cooper cup On the Super Bowl MVP treasured moments the 99 NFC west Got a modern mark 17 of 25 Jerry Rice NFC west NFC north that is going to be two color patch central materials of dalvin cook. All right. Sounds good elusus All right, I'll hold you to that then God afc west four of 49 joey bosa afc west on that one Going to the NFC north central materials to 99. We've got a taylor heinecky All right, so in here NFC west for the Niners Brock Purdy cmc debo samuel george kittle 16 of 99 player one Derek Carr four of 25 jersey numbered afc south or afc west afc west is he's still a raider in this Jersey numbered four of 25 Ain't no condo. He wears number four now for the raiders Just like kind of disrespectful. There's uh third 18 of 25 NFC south is jeremy shocky Whoa Sick afc north How about a justin tucker 10 of 10 all-time leading scorer in raven's history of the treasured moments Yeah, i'm gonna need that Jeffrey h with that one. What? Yeah, like you wouldn't give your right leg to have him kick in your game winning field goals Please Chris m with some personals thomas g with a couple of blaster spots as well And then go to the afc east 11 of 15 sauce gardener on the nfl glove rookie patch auto congrats to neil b With the afc east that's awesome, dude Congrats. Congrats. We'll get that magged 10 to go on Uh contenders optic tiered and just four to go on flawless pyc of football Mr. Matthew stafford to 99 treasured moments wins second super bowl and rams history nfc west God afc north uh anthony mooneos 62 of 78 jersey number parallel One second We've got a Clyde obertsallair to 49 afc west on the colossal jersey Next up nfc south dj more one of 49 framed fabric dj more Uh, oh, that's cool. Uh six of 35 two color one color nfc south is Matt corral This is nasty go into the nfc east four of five jaylon hurts on the logo patch Congrats on that one. This is pretty cool as well. Go into the nfc west Uh six of 49 field pass of kenneth walker gold ink on card Nice k9 nfc west We've got a drew piercing 89 of 99 going to the nfc east by way of the cowboys drew a piercing 19 of 99 that is going to be a it's a mere white Uh horizontal rpa afc west the last one going to the afc east again 40 of 49 brisall Tell you the jets hit a lot in products this year because of how many rookies they have They have good rookies. They really do Congrats on that one afc east. That's neil b again. Congrats neil. All right, see a qb in this last box This might be booklet-ish here shon. All right. We've got a to rick woolen treasured rookies nfc west By way of the seahawks. That'll be good nfc west no nfc south excuse me warren sap to 25 For the bucks super bowl immortality Yes, sir afc north. That's david bell rookie to 49 Again four to go on flawless breaking next full case 14s remain falcons jets packers and titans 19 of 49 it's going to be a derwyn james jr on the treasured patches afc west there not going to the nfc south To 49 mike evans Rats on that one there. Uh, this will be a random at the end This is kind of nasty actually dual patch of kenny picket and brock purdy one of 25 That is afc north jeffrey h nfc west shawnam be a random to you guys Rookie auto is going to be jeremy ruckert to 25 afc east nfc west here that is going to be 14 of 49 fred warner the nfc west congrats on that I just want to hear booklet nine of 10 rookie jumbo prime signatures wan dale robinson That's awesome wan dale robinson nfc east that is going to carry em congrats carry Nice wan dale through nine of 10 and then go into the afc north 63 of 99 two colored treasured impressions rpa Kenny picket congrats on that one there again jeffrey jeffrey h with the stealers congrats buddy Nice one there my man. We'll do a quick random here afc north and nfc west picket purdy All right, getting guys doing the random for the brought our uh, can you pick it brought purdy dual? Patch we've got afc north and nfc west. Let's roll the dice.  We'll get it one two three four five six seven eight nine ten 11 going to the afc north congrats on that jeffrey. All right quick recap here now everybody We had the Kenny picket and brought purdy wan dale robinson a mike evans derwin james david bell Jalen hurts matt corral dj more five edwards a lair quad for the niners A taylor heineke joey bosa davin cook joe burrow Uh, that is teres marshal jr. josh palmer and damien pierce autos we had fred warner jeremy ruckert zamir white Uh, drew piercent kind of walker jesson talker jeremy shockey. Uh, that is their car george pickens therian davis price marc duper the marvin lial Really walk fast security and get into a concert Got a sauce gardener to 15 a of c east Uh, a of c east as well to 49 breeze hall And then a of c north kenny picket 63 of 99 I'll do it for the break guys. Thanks again for the fill up next flawless