As soldiers get bigger and packs get heavier, the average load of an Army parachutist increases. The standard-issue 28-foot diameter nylon parachute, used since Silqua's, shall we say, difficult to import from Japan in the 1930s, may descend too quickly for safety. The U.S. Army-NATIC soldier research, development, and engineering team claims to have developed a higher-drag, less porous chute of the same diameter, which can maintain a sea-level descent speed of 16 feet per second with a 400-pound load. Determine first of all what the coefficient of drag of this new chute design is, and how fast the standard-issue chute would descend at sea level with a 400-pound load. So we can say that the drag force is one-half times the coefficient of drag times, let's go with density times velocity squared times area. Here that coefficient of drag is referring to the shape of the parachute itself. The cross-sectional area is going to be the area of a circle with a diameter of 28 feet. The velocity is going to be whatever the descent speed is, because we're assuming the air is stationary, and the density is going to be the density of air at sea level. Also note, for the trooper to be falling at terminal velocity, we're saying the weight is equal to the drag force. So when we plug in 400 pounds of force for a weight, we are applying that to the drag force as well and figuring out what the terminal velocity will be. So for part A, we are figuring out what the coefficient of drag is, so we're going to solve this equation for coefficient of drag. For the density of air at sea level, we could use the properties on table A2, but we also have a table that is just the properties of air at different elevations. That's table A6. On table A6, we have, among other things, the density of air at different elevations. So atmospheric air at an elevation of zero, which is going to be sea level, will have a density of 1.2255 kilograms per cubic meter. This is useful because if we were considering what the terminal velocity would be at other elevations, we could use a different density. So from table A6, I'm saying the density of air is 1.2255 kilograms per cubic meter. That gives me everything I need to solve for the coefficient of drag. So I want this coefficient of drag to be a unitless proportion, which means that I'm going to have to get cubic meters and feet to eventually cancel. I'm going to have to break the pound of force into its primary components. For that, I will pull up my conversion sheet here. So I recognize that a pound of force can be represented as 32.174 pounds of mass feet per second squared. And then I know the conversion from pounds of mass to kilograms is 2.2046 pound mass. My 2.046 pound mass is 1 kilogram. And let's see how far that got us. Second squared cancels second squared, pound mass cancels pound mass, kilogram cancels kilogram, pound force cancels pound force. So I'm left with the length dimension to deal with. One meter is 3.2808 feet. That's this number here. Easy way to remember it. One meter is 3.2, and then you get that 808 bump. We cube everything. Then cubic meters will cancel cubic meters. Then square feet and square feet will cancel feet and cubic feet. Leaving me with just the number itself, the calculator you needed. So 2 times 400 times 4 times 32.174 times 3.2808 cubed divided by 1.2255 times 16 squared times pi times 28 squared times 2.2046. That gives me a coefficient of drag of 2.1343. Wow, that seems like a big number. Well, bear in mind that this is a drag surface. The whole goal of this mechanism is to create drag. So we would expect a rather high coefficient of drag. The easiest way for us to compare this to what seems like a reasonable quantity would be to look at a standard parachute. So for that, if we go back into table 7.3 or three-dimensional shapes, we can see that a low porosity parachute has a coefficient of drag of 1.2. Our coefficient of drag is 2.1, which is quite a bit higher, but then again, it is supposed to be the leading edge design. So that's probably reasonable for us to claim. For part b, I want to know what the terminal velocity would be for that low porosity designed with a coefficient of drag of 1.2. So we're going to take 1.5 times the coefficient of drag times the area times the velocity square times density. The coefficient of drag is 1.2 as per table 7.3. The area is the same area of a circle. The velocity is the thing that we're solving for. And the density is the density of air at sea level, which is 1.2255 kilograms per cubic meter. In this equation, we have one unknown. We are solving for velocity. That velocity is going to be the square root of 2 times the drag force divided by the coefficient of drag times area times density. So 2 times 400 pound force divided by 0. Nope, divided by 1.2 divided by pi over 4 times 28 squared feet squared divided by 1.2255 kilograms per cubic meter. And if I eventually want a velocity in feet per second, is it specify it doesn't. So the best practice would be to reflect our velocity in the same units as the thing we're comparing against. So let's go with feet per second. That means I want the quantity inside of the radical to be feet squared per second squared. So we'll start with the same breakdown of pound force into its component parts. Then I can convert pound mass to kilograms. That conversion again is 1 kilogram is 2.2046 pound mass.  Get that 808 bump. Cubed feet cubed, 1 cubed. Meters cubed. Meters cubed, cancels meters cubed. Pound force cancels pound force. Leaving me in feet to the fourth power divided by second squared. Oh, I'm missing these two. Okay. All of a sudden I got worried. So that leaves us with feet and feet in the numerator. And second squared in the denominator, which when I take the square root is going to leave me with feet per second. So if I start plugging in numbers, 2 times 400 times 4 times 32.174 times 3.2808 cubed divided by 1.2 times pi times 28 squared times 1.2255 times 2.2046. Close the bottom, close the radical, the power of one half. We get a velocity of 21.34 feet per second. So if we have half the coefficient of drag, it makes sense that we would have almost half the terminal velocity. Therefore, our terminal velocity of 21.34 seems reasonable. But my, if that isn't a lot of energy to be absorbed by the knees, I think I will avoid parachuting with a pack for a while.


Uploading files into Moodle There are two ways of adding documents such as presentations or word processed files to your course. One way is dragging and dropping them straight onto the course page, as we've seen in an earlier video. If you can't use drag and drop, this method uses Moodle's activity chooser and file picker. To upload files this way, we need to turn on the editing, either by clicking the turn editing on button or by scrolling down to the administration block and clicking the turn editing on link. Then, in the section where we'd like to upload the document, we click the link Add an activity or resource. This brings us to the activity chooser, and we scroll down to resources. A document is a resource, and we're going to add a file, so we click the File button. We can click it once, and then click Add at the bottom, or we simply click twice to go straight to the setup screen. The name is important because the name is what the students will see on the page when accessing it. The description is also important. You may or may not want or need to have a description, but if you want this description displayed on the course page, tick the box Display Description on course page. Then, we arrive at the file manager, and again if your browser allows, it's possible just to drag the file straight into this box here. But we are going to click Add, and this takes us to Moodle's file picker, which we will explore in another video. We just want to upload a document, so let's ignore for now the other links. We can choose or browse for our file, and then click to find the file that we want. We can change its name if we want to, we don't have to. We can change the author name, choose a license if we're not happy with the default license, and then click to upload the file. It's worth exploring some of the other settings, such as in appearance. We can, for example here, display the size of our document. Useful if your students have poor internet connections, and we can also display when it was uploaded, so let's do that. If we now save and return to course, we can see our file displayed on the page with its upload date. And note too that like our presentation file above it, it has a useful icon which also shows students what type of file it is.


The DevOps movement is changing the way applications are built, tested, and deployed. The Linux Foundation training course, DevOps and Site Reliability Engineering Fundamentals, implementing continuous delivery, will teach you the skills to deploy software with confidence, agility, and high reliability, using modern practices such as continuous integration and continuous delivery, and tools such as GET, Jenkins, Docker, Kubernetes, and Spinnaker. The course is addressed to software developers who would like to learn how to deliver software safer, faster, and reliably, to engineers who would like to set up automated testing, leverage disposable environments, and integrate it with CI tools, to system administrators and DevOps and Site Reliability Practitioners responsible for deploying software in managing production environments, and build and release engineers who would like to learn how to deploy software safely and continuously. Enroll today to familiarize yourself with the modern approach to application development.


Hello, my name is Jonathan Davis and I'm with the National Consortium for Mission Critical Operations. Today we're going to talk about the differences between a hub, a switch, and a router. Now I've got three examples here. First we'll start with a hub. And you know if I hold up a hub and you look at it you've got ports that you connect wires into. And if I hold up a switch you're seeing the same thing.  So when you look at a hub and you look at a switch you don't really see a difference. The difference is in what's inside. So the basic difference between a hub and a switch is that a hub operates at layer one of the OSI model. That's the physical layer. If we have two computers connected into each one of these ports here and one computer is sending a signal to another computer the signal that the sending computer sends will be broadcast out every port on a hub. It doesn't matter if two computers are connected or 24 computers are connected to this hub. When a computer sends a signal it is broadcast out every single port. So there's some things to keep in mind with that. For example when that happens we are broadcasting every packet to every computer which means that every computer receives every packet that is sent on the network. So it's inefficient it's going to slow things down because we're handling that many packets and the more computers we have the more packets we're going to be receiving. It's not secure because any private information that is sent through a hub is sent to every computer. So if I'm a hacker and I have a packet sniffing application on my computer I'm going to be able to pick up all the packets on the network that are intended for anybody. A switch on the other hand operates at layer two of the OSI model and that's the MAC layer. The MAC layer is a switch operating at layer two is capable of keeping track of MAC addresses using what's called a MAC address table or MAC table. Each computer connects to a port on the switch. The switch remembers the MAC address of the computer connected to which port. So when a computer sends a signal to another computer the computer always says which MAC address the packet is intended for. So once the switch receives it it's going to look at that packet or that frame and it's going to see it's going to look for the sending MAC address or the destination MAC address. What MAC address was this frame intended for? It's then going to look that MAC address up in its MAC address table and see which port is designated for that MAC address. The switch then forwards that frame to that specific port so that only the computer with that MAC address only the computer that the frame was intended for receives that packet. This is with modern switches that have full duplets. An added advantage is that with a hub you have one collision domain meaning that all the computers connected to this device if there is a collision then all computers are affected not just the computers that are connected to one port whereas on a switch each port on a switch represents a different collision domain. So what is a collision? A collision is when two computers or two devices on the network try to send a packet at the exact same time. In a full duplet switch each port is capable of designating four wires for sending and four for receiving meaning that there is never an opportunity for a collision on a switch on a modern switch whereas with a hub any computer that's connected that tries to send a packet or a frame at the exact same time as another computer we are going to have a collision. So collisions are way more abundant when we're talking about hubs than they are when we're talking about switches and in modern switches the thread of a collision is basically eliminated. The last thing we're going to talk about is a router. A router operates at layer three of the OSI model or the network layer. That layer operating at that layer means that the router is capable of looking at the IP address the destination and the source and destination IP address in a packet and forwarding information or forwarding that packet based on an IP route table that the router keeps track of. Also the router has a built-in switch and has two ports that can connect to a local area network that operate at layer two meaning that it can communicate on a local area network and a wide area network through its serial interface. So the serial interface is for the wide area connection and these two CAT5 interfaces are RJ45 connectors here Ethernet connections are meant for a local area connection. So these two ports operate at layer two and these two ports the serial ports operate at layer three. So what that means is that this router can accept frames from a local area network then look at an IP address determine which serial port it needs to go out of in order to reach another server or another computer that may be out on the internet. Because it can look at the IP address and it keeps track of IP address tables it can reach devices that are outside of this network it becomes known as the default gateway for that network. That's the basic difference between a hub, a switch and a router.


And we've been selling a terrific number of cattle off of the Texas ranches, and this is going to be very hard to recover from. It's just devastating. He's calling all Americans of all walks of life to seek him, to return to him, to experience his love and his grace and his acceptance. Experience a fulfilled life regardless of the circumstances. Someday future historians will record this event, and they'll say that something happened in August the 6th. Houston, Texas were fresh anointing. Went across America touching churches at pastors. Thank you for what you're doing. More than 90% of the state is in either exceptional drought or extreme drought. The entire state is in one stage of drought or another. That's a remarkable thing is the extent and the severity of the drought combined. Probably 1956 was the last year that we had a drought problem.   Why are you doing that? You've sacrificed the high ground. No, I haven't. I'm not assessing their entire character.    We are conditioned to behave in ways where we reach incorrect conclusions. The difference is that some of us recognize this and would actually like to change it. And others aren't aware. There's this built-in overconfidence that religion and many religions offer people where they are so assured, I know that I know that I know that I know that Jesus is Lord, that it's absurd to them to think that it might not be true. Yeah, they don't like it whenever you know something that you can show them.


Stories and content in Weird Darkness can be disturbing for some listeners and is intended for mature audiences only. Parental discretion is strongly advised. Welcome Weirdos, I'm Darren Marlar and this is Retro Radio Sunday on Weird Darkness. Each week I bring you a show from the golden age of radio, but still in the genre of Weird Darkness. I'll have stories of the macabre and horror, mysteries and crime and even some dark science fiction. If you're new here, welcome to the show and if you're already a member of this Weirdo family, please take a moment and invite someone else to listen and please leave a rating and review in the podcast app you're listening from. Doing those things helps the show to keep growing and while you're listening, be sure to check out WeirdDarkness.com for merchandise, my newsletter to connect with me on social media and more. Coming up, it's an episode from Somebody Knows, a radio show not that many folks are aware even existed as it only produced 8 episodes in the one summer that it ran. You see, in the summer of 1950, CBS had a problem. On Thursday nights, thousands of people were expecting to tune in to the radio sensation that left people on the edge of their seats each week, suspense. As successful as suspense the radio show was, it ran from 1942 through the end of September 1962, a full 20 years. The production still took a well-deserved vacation every summer, something that continues even today on broadcast television when network shows take a break and return each fall. The 1950 summer replacement for radio's suspense was based on the notion that actual crimes could be even more fascinating and thrilling as the fictional ones on suspense. The idea behind the show was that there are no perfect crimes, that someone, somewhere, could have the one missing clue that would help the police apprehend the killer in these often gruesome true cases. To help entice that person to come forward, the producers even offered a reward of $5,000 – an amount equal to well over $56,000 today – to whomever could come forward with the information that would solve the case of the week, creating an ingenious and rather complicated way to anonymously send the information to the show so that it could be sent to law enforcement agents and still maintain the listeners anonymity. Some of the most sensational cases of the time were dramatized in an informative and entertaining manner, at least entertaining enough to keep you glued to your radio until suspense came back in the fall. This episode, if somebody knows, aired August 10, 1950 and it tells the story of how on April 3, 1948 a Boston taxi driver was killed in a crash of his cab. It was no accident and it was worth $5,000 to anybody who could tell CBS who done it. It's the unsolved murder of Samuel I. Paris.  Suspense, which is heard on Thursday nights at this hour, is taking its customary summer holiday. Suspense returns to the air three weeks from now on Thursday, August 31. Ladies and gentlemen, a $5,000 reward will be offered each week on the program immediately following this announcement.  Listen, somebody knows. Yes, you wherever you may be, no matter where you're hiding, somewhere, some time, someone listening to this program is going to bring you to justice. Yes, somebody knows. The Columbia Broadcasting System presents Somebody Knows, a program conceived in the public interest dedicated to aiding the forces of law and order in the solution of this nation's unsolved crime. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to recreate for you tonight all the known facts in an actual unsolved murder. Somewhere, someone among you's had contact with the killer or killers. Someone whose identity need never be known has seen evidence or possesses information that can lead to the solution of this crime. In the public interest, the Columbia Broadcasting System offers a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killer in this unsolved murder. We ask you then to please listen carefully, for you may be the one to win this reward. Somebody Knows, it may be you. And now we open the files on one of this nation's unsolved murders. Atomicide file number HF12342 of the Boston, Massachusetts police department. The unsolved murder of Samuel I. Paris is approximately 3.30 p.m. Saturday, April 3, 1948. At 54 Jones Avenue in the Dorchester District of Boston, Massachusetts, Samuel I. Paris, a taxi driver, is preparing to leave home to go to work. Okay, honey, okay. You're feeling happy today, aren't you, Sammy? Can you give me a good, for instance, why I shouldn't with you around? I wouldn't even try. Now, look, Sammy, be sure and have a good dinner. Yeah, sure.  All right. And be sure to wear your heavy jacket. You can't tell about these spring nights, and I don't want you catching cold. Okay, honey, okay. You know, I thought we only had three kids, but as far as you're concerned, I guess I'm the fourth. Goodbye, there. Goodbye, Sammy. Take care of yourself. Don't worry. Oh, kiss the kids for me, huh? And, uh, Mrs. Paris, you know something? Better save a couple for me when I get home. Oh, Sammy. Salah, honey. The time is approximately 10.45 p.m. Saturday, April 3, 1948. Cab number 702 of the Independent Taxicab Operators Association, speeding along Quiet Residential Norfolk Avenue in the Roxbury District of Boston, Massachusetts. Suddenly, it swerves toward the curb, smashes into the rear of a parked car and comes to a stop on the sidewalk. At the same moment, in the home of Fred Lutfe, 177 Norfolk Avenue in Roxbury, a game of whist is in progress. The players are Mr. Lutfe, his wife, Jean, his mother, and his sister, Mrs. Barbara Darian of 12 Rutland Street, South End, who is visiting him. Now you should have known better than that. Oh, well, I always say this game is more luck than skill, Barbara. Oh, now, Fred. Oh, he's only jealous, Jean. Maybe someday he... Hey. Now, what was that? Oh, sounds like a couple of women drivers tangling bumpers somewhere. Hmm. Whose deal is it? Oh, mine, I guess. Though I don't mind telling you, young man, that I consider your remarks about women drivers as being highly... What, Barbara? My car is parked out in front. Do you think it's possible that... Maybe I better look out the window. Why, it is my car. It is? Your car, Barbara. Yes, that taxi cab must have hit it. Look, the cab's still on the sidewalk with its lights on. Yes. And the driver is somebody's running away down the street. How do you like that? A hit and run.  Now, be careful, Fred, don't get in any trouble.  Shoved it way down the street. Don't worry, Barbara. The cab company will take care of it. Oh. Hey, wait a minute. Yeah, it wasn't the driver who... Look at him, sleeping at the wheel. Must be drunk or something. Now, look, Mac, what was the idea of driving like a lunatic? Don't you know that she... What is it, Fred? What's the... This man, the driver, I think he's... Jenny! Jenny, you better call the police! It is approximately 10.50 p.m. Saturday, April 3rd, 1948. At the dispatcher's desk on the seventh floor of police headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. Dispatcher, what kind of trouble, ma'am? A cab. What's the address, please? It's a... 177 North Pole. And your name? Miss B. All right, Mrs. Lofty. Thanks for your notifying us. We'll have some men right over there. The dispatcher takes a quick look at the lighted control board in front of him, notes the disposition of cars in the Roxbury district, and picks up his hand microphone set. Calling car 9-0. Calling car 9-0. 9-0. Taxi cab has jumped curb on Norfolk Avenue near Shirley Street. Investigate. 9-0. On our way. W-R-A-S. Within a minute or two, car 9-0 arrives at the scene of the crash. The police officers make a quick check of the driver who is still slumped over the wheel. Then they put in a call for an ambulance. While waiting for it to arrive, they talk with Mr. Lofty and Mrs. Darian. You didn't touch the driver. Did you see that when you first saw him? Yeah, that's right, obviously. Slumped over the wheel just like that. At first we thought he might be drunk or something, and then my wife called you. There's a tab of $1.60 on the meter. It's still running. Must have had a fare. Was anyone else in it, Cam? No. No, there wasn't anyone else in it. Wait a minute. I did see someone running down the street. It was just as I looked out the window. I saw him turn down Shirley Street. Could you identify him? Oh, no. No, I don't think so. What I could tell was that he seemed young. He had dark clothes on. No, I'm sure I could. Do you have the driver's name for the identification card? It's Paris. Samuel I. Paris. 54 Jones Avenue, Dorchester. Okay, be sure to give it to him, huh? All right, folks. Stand back, now, will you? Stand back, please. Let the ambulance. The ambulance rushes the cab driver to the Boston City Hospital, where he's examined immediately upon arrival. Then, probably cardiac failure, natural causes. Better remove him to the mark. The body of Samuel I. Paris is then removed to the southern mortuary, an annex of Boston City Hospital. His widow, Mrs. Rachel Paris, and his three children are informed of the tragedy. Then, some 12 hours later, the autopsy is required by law. Is performed by Dr. Richard Ford, associate medical examiner of Suffolk County.   I know how you feel about that, Dr. Ford. What's to be learned about causes of death and a routine autopsy, like this one, for instance? You never can tell. It's always possible to... There. It's always possible to uncover a murder. Murder? But... Dr. Ford? Yes, it's a small caliber bullet penetrated under the right ear and lodged beneath the left ear after piercing the brain. We'd better notify the superintendent of police. In just a moment, we'll continue with homicide file number HF12342 of the Boston, Massachusetts Police Department. The unsolved murder of Samuel I. Paris. If you love old-time radio, you'll want to visit our friends at ClassicRadioStore.com who provide all the shows for me to wear. At ClassicRadioStore.com, you'll find thousands of episodes available in pristine, digitally remastered sound. Every episode they offer at ClassicRadioStore.com has been transferred from the master recordings and digitally remastered for superior sound quality. That's why the episodes that you hear on Weird Darkness sound so clean. And the shows at ClassicRadioStore.com are all uncut, unedited and are delivered to you as they were originally broadcast, including the classic commercials. You can download great shows that'll chill you and thrill you, such as Suspense, The Whistler, Inner Sanctum, Lights Out, and more. There are mystery and crime shows like Sherlock Holmes, Philip Marlowe, Dragnet, and Sam Spade. They've got a great collection of old-time science fiction radio shows like X-1 or Dimension X. Plus, there is a ton of comedy and westerns there, too, if you want to relive the shows of yesteryear. All the shows are available to instantly digitally download, and the links never expire, so you can order them now and listen to them anytime you'd like. And because you're a listener of Weird Darkness, you can save 20% on any and all radio shows on the website by using the promo code Weird at checkout. Just visit ClassicRadioStore.com, select all the radio show packages you want, then at checkout, use the promo code Weird and save 20% on your whole purchase. That's ClassicRadioStore.com, promo code Weird at checkout. Do you have something around the house that needs fixing, or are you planning to take on a new employee? Contact your local state employment office and ask for a physically handicapped worker. Through your state rehabilitation agency and the Veterans Administration, men and women who have physical impairments have been trained in new and special skills. It's good business to hire physically handicapped workers. They'll do a good job for you. Now back to somebody knows and a true case history of an actual murder. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we'll continue with the rest of the factual information concerning file number HF12342 in the records of the Boston, Massachusetts police department. The unsolved murder of Samuel I. Paris. Remember, $5,000 will be paid for information leading to the arrest and conviction of his killer. With the disclosure that the death of Samuel I. Paris was caused by the firing of a bullet into his head, Superintendent of Police Edward W. Fallon orders an immediate all-out effort to apprehend his killer. A tale of patrolmen makes a house-to-house canvas of the Norfolk Avenue, Shirley Street area, questioning residents seeking clues to the slayer. Thomas Del Tolfo of 164 Norfolk Avenue tells them... When I heard the crash, I looked out of my window. Saw a man get out of the rear of the cab. Only was one a sweater or maybe a short coat. I think he had a gray soft hat. He looked young to me. I thought at first the cabbie had a blow-out and the fare was even. Bus driver James Spillane of 22 Bigson Street, Dorchester tells the police... It was about 10 to 11 Saturday night. That was April 3rd. And I pick up this passenger at Shirley Street, Massachusetts Avenue. I remember him pretty clear. He's about 19 years old. He's maybe 5'4", he's got blonde hair and he was built kind of thin. He was wearing a gabardine coat. No hat. He got off at the Northampton Elevator Station. It was about 11.05. Police ballastician Edward J. Culkin reports... The bullet that killed Paris was 22 caliber from a short shell, fired from a target pistol or an old or foreign gun. The murder weapon will be easily identifiable once we have it in our possession. Out of the welter of reports finding their way to Superintendent Fallon's desk, a number of pertinent facts come to light. Facts that enable the police to reconstruct the last hour and 45 minutes of Samuel Parris' life. This is their reconstruction of the crime. Please listen carefully. It is 9 p.m. Saturday, August 3rd, 1948. Cab 702 with driver Samuel Parris at the wheel is parked at the stand on Tremont Street in front of the Parker House. A man and a woman enter the cab and give him an address. Okay, sir. Somewhere in the vicinity of North Station his two passengers leave the cab and Samuel Parris heads back in a southwesternly direction. Then at approximately 10 o'clock he parks at the cab stand at Washington and Neeland streets and almost immediately picks up a sailor and a girl as passengers and drives them downtown. Then at 10.15 p.m. he's returning from this trip when he stops for a signal light on Tremont Street at park. Another cab driven by Harry Pitchell of 53 Ellington Street, Dorchester, pulls up along side. Hi, Sammy. Hey, Harry. How goes it? Same as usual. What about you? It could be better. It could be worse. I ain't kicking. Sammy Parris, alright. Don't you ever kick? What's the kick? Got my health. I'm working. They still need cabs and busts and I'm happy. Okay, pal. Won't argue. Yeah, sure thing, Harry. As the lights change, Samuel Parris drives back toward the cab stand at Washington and Neeland streets. He's approximately 10.20 p.m. as he pulls in and stops. Then at about 10.25 p.m. the door of his cab opens and a man gets in. Yeah, sure thing, mister. Samuel Parris drives south on Neeland to Albany Street. Then turns west in the direction of Roxbury. When he finally reaches Hampton Street, he turns again and down onto Norfolk Avenue. Somewhere along the way, he suddenly feels the cold muzzle of a gun pressing against his neck below his right ear. Alright, Hackey. That's a gun, you feel. What is this, Mac? A sticker? What else? Look, I got no dough on me. You should have better sense than to picking a Hackey without...  What I'm telling you, I got...  Okay, Mac. Okay. What am I supposed to do now? Just keep driving. I'll tell you what. Just keep driving. Okay, you're the boss. Samuel Parris keeps driving down Norfolk Avenue. He's calm, alert. He slips his wristwatch far up his left sleeve, hoping it might go unnoticed. He tries to figure some way out. Then an idea comes to him. Hey, what do you think you're doing? Maybe I'm in a hurry to get this over with. Slow down.  Now slow down! Okay, Mac. Okay! Damn! What are you doing, you white guy? There's now the day following the murder of Samuel I. Parris. A car is speeding down a highway in Dedham, near the Westwood town line. Four youths are inside. The driver is weaving recklessly in and out of traffic. A dozen times, accidents are only narrowly averted. Finally, a pursuing police car forces him over to the curb. All right, step out. Keep your hands up. Come on. Get a move on. All of you, out! Better frisk him. Between hit and run in a stolen car, anything's lovable to show up. Stand still, you. Just keep those hands up. Hey, something did show up. This. Yeah, looks like 22 caliber. It is. Isn't that the caliber that got the cabbie over in Roxbury last night? Yeah. And that's where this car was reported stolen. Got to hunch the boys at Roxbury are going to be pretty happy to see these four punks. The four youths are turned over to the police at the Roxbury division. They're questioned thoroughly. The 22 caliber pistol found on one of them is given to ballistics for checking. And then sometime later, the police issue a statement. Ballistics reports that the 22 caliber pistol is not the one used in the Paris murder. Our questioning has convinced us that these four youths have no connection with that case. The investigation into the murder of Samuel Parris continues unabated as the entire city of Boston is aroused. Voices of anger and protest are raised in the city council and veterans organizations. The cab drivers of Boston have their own way of showing their feelings about this case. Thanks for the tip, Mr. It's going to the widow and kids of Sammy Parris. The search for the slim blonde youth seen boarding the bus at Massachusetts and Shirley goes on unrelentingly. In his identification now seems to lie the one possible hope for the solution of the killing. It is now April 7th, 1948 in police station nine in Roxbury the desk sergeant is checking reports from several patrolmen out in the field when the door opens. Then steps approach the desk and halt. I'd like to talk to someone please. Sure. What's the... Standing before the desk is a young man about 19 years of age. He's about five foot eight. Thin. He has blonde hair. I... I'm the man who got on that bus at Massachusetts and Shirley I understand you're looking for me. The man is interviewed question thoroughly. His statements checked and rechecked. The result... We are satisfied that this man has no connection with the death of Samuel Parris. Then five months later what seems to be the first major break in the case suddenly occurs. It's 2 a.m. on the morning of September 12th, 1948 a cab driven by Joseph Murad of 29 Upton Street, South End is driving through Andrews Square. Hey cab! Taxi! Hey taxi! C and 6th Street, South Boston. Then as the cab approaches the destination Murad suddenly feels something cold and hard pressed against his neck.  The man orders Murad to throw his money on the floor and the driver does so. Then he's ordered to stop the cab. He's forced out and the man drives the cab away. 20 minutes later, cab driver Isidore Klein of 122 Howland Street in Roxbury picks up a man on Washington Street near Bennett. The same procedure is followed as with Joseph Murad. Klein is forced to throw his money on the floor. He's ordered out of his cab and the man drives off in it. Meanwhile a special service squad containing Sergeant Thomas O'Keefe, Detective Frank Mulvey and John Preston has been alerted to the Murad hold up. They're cruising on Dorchester Avenue near Columbia when... Look there's a cab being hailed up ahead there. Yeah I see it. Man getting in along. Think of better talk to him.  I think they want to talk to you at headquarters. The suspect is identified at police headquarters by drivers Murad and Klein. He's questioned exhaustively by special officers Leo Devlin and Arthur O'Shea who've been working on the Paris case. Then this statement is issued. We are satisfied that this man has no connection with the death of Samuel Paris. It is now September 20th, 1948. Judge Samuel Eisenstadt of the Roxbury Court makes a report on the inquest into the death of Samuel I. Paris. An inquest that's been held open since April 3rd. The deceased was a man of excellent reputation. Good father and a good husband who had no known enemies. There was no motive for anyone to wish to take his life unless the motive for robbery. I advocate that the case be held open in the event that the assailant should be apprehended. Despite the fact that this court is unable to recommend prosecution or the issuance of complaints against this unknown person. Unknown person? No. The killer of Samuel I. Paris is not unknown. Somewhere in whatever town or city this man is hiding someone, if you have seen him today has spoken to him, eaten lunch and dinner with him. Knows the location of the gun that he fired on that night two and a half years ago. No, the cold blooded brutal killer who took the life of Samuel I. Paris is not unknown. Somebody knows. Now listen carefully please. Listen all of you, wherever you may be. We're going to give you a recapitulation of pertinent facts in the unsolved murder of Samuel I. Paris. Better make a note of them. And remember, by following the instructions we shall give you in a moment, you may be the one to earn a $5,000 reward. Now here are the actual facts in the case. Samuel I. Paris, 39 years of age, a cab driver, was shot to death in his cab in the vicinity of 177 Norfolk Avenue in the Roxbury district of Boston, Massachusetts. The time approximately 10.45 p.m. Saturday, April 3, 1948. The murder weapon was .22 caliber. It is believed to be either a target pistol or an old or foreign gun. A young man's light build wearing either a sweater or a short coat and a soft gray hat was witnessed running from the scene of the crime. This man is definitely wanted by the police as a suspect in the murder of Samuel I. Paris. Ladies and gentlemen, if any of you possesses information that may have a bearing on the unsolved murder of Samuel I. Paris, and please don't send guesses or hunches but only actual, authentic information, follow these instructions so that your name and identity need never be made known unless you wish. Now listen carefully. Write your information on a plain sheet of paper. Do not sign your name. Instead, sign it with six numbers. Any arrangement of any six numbers. And then tear off a blank corner of that paper with a ragged edge. Write the same six numbers on that corner and keep it. Mail the rest of the paper with the information to somebody knows Hollywood, California. You need tell no one what you've done. Mail your letter to somebody knows Hollywood, California. And if the information you've supplied leads to the arrest and conviction of the killer of Samuel I. Paris, will announce your signature number on this program. Then if you don't want your name to be known, go to your lawyer or doctor, your priest, minister, or rabbi, and have him present the torn corner of the paper to any CBS station. In this way, you do not need to appear in person. If the torn corner matches the original paper containing the information, the $5,000 reward will be yours.  Next week at the same time, we'll present another true case history of unsolved murder. It's homicide file number 3867 from the records of the Detroit Michigan Police Department. The unsolved murder of Mrs. Jean Long.  Listen, you cannot escape. There is no perfect crime. Remember, you are not unknown. Somebody knows. Tonight's case was written by Sidney Marshall from information in the files of the Boston, Massachusetts Police Department. Research was by Maurice Zim. Music was composed and played by Milton Charles. Somebody knows is a James L. Safier production in association with CBS by arrangement with the Chicago Sun Times and is based on a copyright owned by W. L. Finstead. It was narrated and directed by Jack Johnstone. In order to be eligible for the reward, letters containing actual authentic information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killer or killers of Samuel I. Parris must be addressed to somebody knows Hollywood, California and must be postmarked not later than midnight, August 30, 1950. Arrest of the guilty person or persons must occur within 90 days of that date and conviction must be within one year of tonight's broadcast. If more than one person gives the information leading to conviction, our judges will divide the $5,000 reward among them in proportion to the importance the judges attached to the facts imply and in this, the decision of our judges will be final. Until next Thursday at the same time, this is Don Baker saying good night. And remember, somebody knows. When Casey, CBS crime photographer, goes on the trail of a Wagnerian theme in The Love Death Tonight, you're invited to listen in. In fact, stay tuned for it right now. For Casey, crime photographer follows immediately on most of these same CBS stations. This is CBS where you find Arthur Godfrey's daytime program every Monday through Friday on the Columbia Broadcasting System. Thanks for listening to this week's Retro Radio episode of Weird Darkness. If you like the show, please share it with someone you know who loves old time radio and leave a rating and review in the podcast app you listen from to help spread the word about Weird Darkness and Retro Radio Sunday. And a huge thanks to our friends at ClassicRadioStore.com for generously providing the old time radio shows that you hear on Weird Darkness Retro Radio Sunday. Remember, you can save 20% on all of the ClassicRadioStore.com shows by using the promo code Weird at checkout. The rest of the week, I narrate new stories of the paranormal or strange stories, true crime, monsters and mysteries. So be sure to subscribe to the podcast if you haven't already done so. I upload episodes 7 days a week. You can email me anytime and find all of my social media links at WeirdDarkness.com. Also on the website, you can listen to free audiobooks that I've narrated. Shop the Weird Darkness store. Sign up for the newsletter to win monthly prizes and more. Weird Darkness is a production and trademark of Marlar House Productions. Copyright Weird Darkness. I'm Darren Marlar. Thanks for joining me in the Weird Darkness.


I've had multiple opportunities to be involved with the Western Mass Writing Project and each time, you know, it's been a valuable resource to me and I would definitely take future opportunities to be involved with the Western Mass Writing Project again. I feel they are a valuable tool to gain knowledge, connect and collaborate with other educators in the Valley around a variety of different topics, not just science but science and literacy and speaking, reading, writing. So I would absolutely take part in other opportunities presented. We were able to meet so many other teachers from other school districts and from all different grade levels and that really brought a lot to this course and I think all of us enjoyed the course and enjoyed the company and the work we've all done, the collaboration and I look forward to other experiences within the Western Mass Writing Project.


Four United States Senators visited Interpol's Regional Bureau in Buenos Aires to see firsthand how the organization promotes international police cooperation. The Senators were welcomed by Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble and Rafael Pena Hernandez, the head of the Regional Bureau, for a tour of the office which serves as Interpol's regional contact point for South America. Accompanied by the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina and the head of the U.S. NCB in Washington, the Senators were updated on Interpol's tools and activities which helped police protect the country's 315 million citizens and 50 million annual visitors. The U.S. is the largest user of Interpol's stolen and lost travel documents database, carrying out more than 220 million checks in 2012 alone. This allowed police to identify some 10,500 people trying to enter the country on fraudulent passports. Secretary General Noble said Interpol helps ensure that vital international policing information gets into the hands of local and national police when and where it is needed most. With the opening of its Command and Coordination Center in 2011, Buenos Aires became the first regional bureau with around-the-clock police support capacity. This has played a central role in operation in South America, targeting international fugitives suspected to be in the region.


This is a piece of work that I did with some colleagues actually all based in Europe, but it was the outcome. That works for me. Thank you. Sorry. Tina, I think it was. Somebody's having a chat. So this is the outcome of, well, it was initiated at a meeting two years ago now, which was a brand meeting was around metadata standardization, but the, you know, one of the discoveries. No, that's surprising is that alongside or underneath metadata standards, you almost always find that you have a set of terminologies or codelists or vocabularies that are needed to provide the data that goes into the fields in the metadata record. And that's, you know, there's this was a rich history, particularly in the sciences of developing the categories. But sort of too many of them reside in, in not very useful or not very interoperable places like in, in books or or in appendices to books or sometimes just in in graphics. Even organizations that you would imagine or to have their act together like the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, you know, publishes the SI in essentially what comes down to us as a book. They refer to it as the handbook, the SI handbook. It's, yes, it's on the web, but it's, but it's just web pages. So we, this, this piece of work, we, we basically looked at what we would want to do to make these kinds of legacy, what we referred to as legacy of the categories that's vocabularies, which are presented in the kind of traditional way, to make them more useful in a, in a distributed web-centric context. And we refer to that as a fair vocabulary, sort of using the terminology of findable, accessible and interoperable, usable. And kind of another that I wanted to use for that, which means I'm going to have to swap the screen that I'm sharing and share another one briefly. So this, this table is a sort of an interpretation, it's not a very strict interpretation, but it's an interpretation principle of how you would apply the fair principles or at least the fair letters to publishing the vocabulary. And, you know, we can go through those, but you know, to make it findable, it must be available from at least one repository recognized by our community, and that it's possible to search for a term of vocabulary and get the identifier for it. So this is a kind of link data viewpoint where we're focusing very strongly around the idea that every item in a vocabulary should have a web identifier. And the vocabulary as a whole should have a web address at the top. Then accessibility is addressed by saying, all right, when you de-reference that identifier, I'm sure to get something useful. The interoperability is addressed by saying, well, the, to be useful, the representation must conform to some standard. And it also makes it maximally interoperable to map in relations to other vocabularies. Finally, the reusability is managed through the licensing metadata and the definitions being sufficient. So, hoping back to my other screen again, see I'm reusing this material, but just to motivate us. We have plenty of precedents of fair vocabularies, some of which are hosted in services, we've got some which we host. ARDC has research recovers Australia and they host hundreds of vocabularies, which in a form which satisfies pretty much all of those criteria which I just went through as to how we think of vocabularies in the context of fair. And so this paper that we wrote was basically a kind of almost a step by step, but it can't be totally step by step because each vocabulary has got slightly different profiles, but a set of concerns that need to be addressed in order to make a legacy vocabulary, just something that you might quite quickly call fair. And, you know, in contrast to some earlier work or parallel work that has been done, particularly coming out in Europe, which is focused very, very much on the technology side of it, with national ontologies and these kinds of things. We've buried almost all of that in item number six, and everything else around this set of rules is almost all around sort of social processes, getting agreements, dealing with the vocabulary owners and custodians, and thinking about the licensing arrangements, taking care of persistence of the identifiers. And finally, making sure that you recognize that when you've published your fair vocabulary, you have to maintain it, and that maintenance is in a couple of directions. One is making sure it stays alive, and the other is making sure it stays up to date.  So that's kind of what we did, you know, with all, when we were pulling together these rules, however, I would sort of emphasize that it was based on experience. And, you know, a particularly rich experience, or a couple of experiences that I had in the design of the way we did these rules. One was the vocabulary is from the Australian soil and so they fill a book, which is one of these classic legacy vocabularies where the reference version is in print form in a book. And we have most of these terminologies out of this field handle available in a fair way, currently largely published through Syro, but we carefully made sure that the reference URIs aren't Syro ones. So there could be this whole vocabulary could easily be re-homed in research for cameras, Australia, for example, and that would be the direction we plan to go. And, you know, there's a bit of a checklist here about how we satisfied those 10 simple rules. And another one which I've been working on over the years was turning the geological timescale, which the classic version of which is published is this colored picture, something which is sort of fully bare and some link data semantic web technology stack, so that so that it's for the accessible. Now, the process in the middle there of creating the machine readable representations was turning something which may be tabulated on a page into something which is in SCOS or IDF or Al or Jason or whatever. We did talk about that a little bit in the paper, but there's a number of different pathways and you just sort of recognize and the tooling around that was a number of different tool sets which are already available. So rolling up the sleeves and turning that theory into reality might be something that we should pick up with and over the screen. Okay, Rowan, do you want to say anything? So do you want me to just go ahead? Please, please go ahead. Okay, so, like Simon, I have done a little bit of work on persistence of things and what not. And in fact, let me share my screen and you'll see this is a mini mini sideline but it's related. Okay, so my screen should be coming up now says a paper here from a few years ago, the challenges of ensuring persistency of identify systems in the world of ever changing technology so this is the persistence of the identifier system to ensure the persistence of the identifiers that the system manages and it's relevant to both caps and other things and this is a paper that I and a couple of the CSI at the time people published. And so this is that this paper is somewhat similar to the 10 rules for vocabaries but for identifiers and it says you should manage the governance of the system as well as the identifiers themselves and so on. So that's just a thing there that this kind of work sort of goes on and on but where I wanted to go on top of what Simon's just presented is just some of the things that we're doing with actual technical and specific arrangements for vocabary publication. And I've mentioned these many times before in this forum, but I'll show you all a couple of things which will hopefully paint the picture as to where we're up to. So a little while ago a few months ago, we did some work for Geoscience Australia based on this workflow and what this workflow is it's a vocabulary creation and publication workflow we don't need to consider all the details but essentially, there are several ways in which vocabaries might be created inside Geoscience Australia where you can take a, there might be an expert there who can type out by hand a vocabulary, a semantic vocabulary file, or they might use a tool to make the vocabulary. There's a whole bunch of different ways it might come from out of a database but we have a couple of instances of organizations that have pretty good vocabulary review and release procedures. So however you actually make the vocab you then go through this review and release procedure and then once you've kind of agreed to release this vocabulary you then want to go into what we think of as best practice or pretty good publication. So what does that look like? So this workflow has got elements within it that try and do as many of these things as that we think need to be done with as little effort as possible from the doers of it. So for instance, if we look at, and I'm going to just, I'm using specific examples here, let's look at the vocabularies, as managed by the Geological Survey of Queensland. These vocabularies are SCOS vocabularies and we can see the system there in a second but Geological Survey of Queensland, you can manage graphs inside graphs and graph systems and graph databases and so on but actually managing vocabularies in terms of an organization managing a set of anything. The fact that their semantic is exciting but managing them as a series of documents and so on, the Geological Survey is quite able to manage collections of files in a version control system. So this system that you're seeing here, it has a collection of vocabularies in it, there's 80 or something in here, that's them all there, but it also has user acceptance testing vocabularies which are not exactly the same set. It's also got access control rules about this repository who is able to actually put certain content in what place, it's got roles assigned to the people to do that, it's got automated tooling around this so that when certain actions are performed other things automatically happen. So this is actually the management system for the vocabularies, it's just ordinary old GitHub, it's used for lots of stuff, and as far as we can tell it's working just fine for the Geological Survey's vocabularies. So the reason about going on about this is that we have very interesting content, we have all these different ways that it might be produced but the actual authoritative version containment and release system is just ordinary old GitHub. This is partly able because the vocabularies we deal with at the end of the day can be represented as text files, we might want them in a system but nevertheless we can have them so we can manage them like any other version controlled text file. So this is just from experience, we've tried to manage vocabularies in specialised vocabulary management systems but actually we have a couple of examples of organisations that have no problem managing it here. Now a counter example is the British Oceanographic data centre, they manage several hundred vocabularies in a oracle database system and they have procedures and roles and access and release and so on all around that. But again, their content is managed in a non-semantic web, non-vocabulary specialised system, it's just an oracle database and then it's used as semantic vocabularies somewhere else. But yeah, very standard tooling, so that's kind of one thing. So on this kind of this workflow of creation of vocabularies and management and release and publication, the management bit ormy systems, when we look at the actual how to best publish the vocabularies, it's not okay just to leave them I think in a folder in GitHub and say they're all a vocabularies. And a lot of places have done this, they just said here are vocabularies and we might have tooling that uses this elsewhere and if you want to use our vocabularies, here they are. But because of the kind of machine readable and human readable possibilities of semantic web stuff, I don't think I think we could be much better than this. So this particular set of vocabs comes out in the geological surveys vocab delivery tool. So here's the tool, you hear those same vocabularies and you know we can look inside them and we can browse them and so on that's all fine. But this tool is entirely slave to that GitHub repository, it doesn't do any management and it doesn't do any version control or anything it just represents the content. As you saw before that GitHub repository. So that's that aspect. Now, back to that workflow. So, I won't go through all the details but essentially there's one big block about creation and we haven't talked about creation tools yet much but you create vocabs in several ways, you get them into wherever it's gone. You get them into this click through my link sorry. Simon. Sorry you asked me to make my comment.  You know it's interesting what you said Nick saying they're perfectly capable of managing their content in a version control system. And then you've, you know, since then we've been looking at the web interface to GitHub. You know, I work with this every day. I'm a little bit interested to know if the rest of the audience here if, if they can, if those things joined together as smoothly as we're assuming. That's a good point. Yeah, and I should say, even before anyone else jumps into answer that the geological survey couldn't use GitHub until the vocabulary project came along in fact they had never used version control systems. The vocabulary system was actually the first system that they now use GitHub for lots of stuff, but they had not used version control for anything until I came along three years ago and said well you're going to have to manage all this content. Why do you do this. They've since used it for you know images documents soft software all kinds of stuff but that actually this system was the first one and but yeah please if anybody else. You know, starting as if you like from an engineering viewpoint. It's, it's, it's sort of sometimes horrifying to imagine people aren't storing stuff in a version control system and and and in the cloud and backed up on that but that may be a strong assumption which isn't shared everywhere. I mean we know the next the next unit that we want to work with the geological survey WA they have no such management systems in place yet. Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely true. I could comment, Nick and Simon, if that's alright. I mean, as a scientist ecologist that hasn't had news version control at all. So working with vocabularies has been an opportunity to get into it and I really marvel at the, you know what it can do. Access controls you know rights responsibilities whatever you're assigning but the ability to work with people instead of sending Excel files backwards and forwards was just like oh my God. This is so much better there's just too much risk in you know having things stored where you've got them stored locally even backed up to a server didn't make me feel comfortable you like them. And knowing whether you're not you're working on the right version. So it's been a really learning curve for me but it's doable. There's plenty of resourcing on the web there to get a handle of GitHub particularly the pushing, you know, working with Git and being able to push up the files is something I need to keep working on. But so it's a learning curve for domain experts. I guess if you're expecting domain experts to manage the vocabularies in this way but I think it's certainly doable. And I think what you teach lessons. Yeah, I think I think what Nick's, you know, quite nicely illustrating to us is, you know, on the one hand you've got if you like the point of truth, which is these files and version control system. But then the access methods you need to make easier. And the fact that he can tell us that behind the scenes, this is completely synced up with the point of truth is, is, is a necessary condition. But, you know, I mean frankly this interface that Nick's showing us at the moment is is way way better than what you would find if you open one of those files. But it's still pretty geeky. And, and, you know, for for normal users we need to be looking beyond this kind of view to something which is is really as much as possible would resemble the things that they have printed in their books at the moment. Just one other thought on the version control. So, I'm not sure if everyone's on this course aware, but the, the version control system that's used to get have so get. I mean, the origins of that system where the Linux foundation so the people who actually build the Linux kernel operating system kernel they, they were unhappy with version control system so they went and wrote their only one. And now the world kind of uses it, but, you know, the way they use it is like orders of magnitude more complex than the way we use it. They use it to integrate and do all the stuff with software. And so managing files in the way that we are text files that have changes tracks changes is, is, is, you know, breakfast work for get. I mean, it really is no problem for that system so that's why we find it easy. However, it's still get still uses a, a difference mechanism that's not 100% native to the way our semantic stuff works so it can, it can very carefully tell you what characters changed in lines and what lines changed over time it's very good at that. But it doesn't do very nice jobs where say someone takes a vocabulary, and they've made a an isomorphic change or what I mean is a change that it doesn't actually affect the content in the, and so on but it affects the way that the content is printed out in the file but it doesn't affect it wouldn't affect the display that you see here but it does affect the source control file that would look like a completely different version but the content hasn't actually changed. For that kind of version control change, you really do have to look into specialized graph tools for that to work out that this graph is actually isomorphic to that graph. That's out of scope kind of here and I haven't yet come across an organization that other than my own that cares enough about different vocabs to do that but it's possible that yes you could have two vocabs that inversion control completely different but actually the same, and you could have for instance two formats of the same vocab it's the same vocab you know all of those problems what do you do about those there are version control tools for semantic graphs, but I found that yes let's get everyone up to using good version control and point of truth storage and all that sort of stuff well before we worry about graph do thing issues. That's a maturity thing, organization maturity thing. Okay so that's the vocab so we've got the vocabs in the conversion control system on a normal version control or an Oracle database or whatever the organizations wanting to use. And, and now we want to do stuff with the vocab so we want to publish them. And also we want to, in general, you know, find other vocabs for use and so on so I'm going to show you a quote that as in a kind of project quote that my company's done recently for the geological survey of Western Australia. I'm just seeing if I can not trying to have a zoom in. Don't think I can zoom in. Maybe I can hang on. There we go. Okay, so what this quote says is there's a bunch of vocabulary publication tools out there some of them are these one organizational tools like the geological survey Queensland, but there's also research vocabulary Australia which Simon's mentioned which is an aggregator. And what this contract says is let's build a couple of extensions to the search mechanisms in our vocabulary publication tool, so that we can use that tool also as a cross system searching thing. And the reason we would do this is that if I'm an organization and I've published a bunch of vocabs and I want to publish another one tomorrow. Optimally I would semantic web optimally I would reuse terms from elsewhere I wouldn't just slavishly implement them all from scratch so. There's a search functionality in these tools where if I search for the word coal it'll find me all of the vocabs, or all of the terms within vocabs. Within this organization of vocabs that have coal in it in a particular way, but I generally don't just want to do that. I want to search across all of the vocabaries out there. Now RVA has done a good job of aggregating, you know, many hundreds of vocabs and I can search across all of them. But what if I want to search across my collection of vocabs and that one and RVA and another one? How do I do that? So the contract extension that the contract that we're working on is an extension to the publication tool to allow for cross system searching. I think I've got a picture here. These are obviously wire friends. We haven't built this yet, but instead of just searching for a term on a vocab we would now search for a term and say which systems do we want to search across and we could choose. And the results would come back something like this rather than what I've just shown you where come back and it would say I can see coal in this vocab and I can see coal in this other vocab and this vocabs at some other organization. Now, this kind of multi search interface thing. This multi system search thing rather there have been several attempts in the community design aware of to do this sort of thing, but it's really difficult because of the way people constitute the vocabaries they can be quite different and searches, you know, do and don't work and all this stuff. So in terms of publication and management, I think we have to start with a fairly strict regime of different organizations publishing vocabs in a particular way and show that search works across those and then over time loosen how you may represent your vocabaries, but we have to from a multi organization point of view if we want search to work across those and we want absorption and reuse of vocabaries we have to be very very strict about how we constitute our vocabs. The temptation here is that because of the semantic website of being able to do quote anything, you might have very very different styles of vocabs that just makes the tool making tasks basically impossible. If we don't have very strong guarantees about what a vocabulary looks like, not the content, but you know how it's structured. We really can't operate. So this is the forefront of where we're up to is making cross system search and where does this go to the management and publication. Well, if I want to make a vocab tomorrow. The best thing I could do would be to ensure that I'm either directly reusing existing vocabs that are in the space or choosing not to use them and stating why to, you know, put the terms that I want in there and position them according to the other terms out there. And then once I've done all that stuff back to that workflow thing the last few things I want to do is I want to publish the vocabulary in my system and or publish the vocabulary in an aggregated system. So the last bit of this contract is to ensure that any vocab that's published in this way. So you see this. And this is the whole purpose vocabulary when this is published here by the geological survey Queensland. Unless they say otherwise, there'll be an automatic thing to go and also publish or update this vocabulary at the research vocab is Australia. So we treat the research vocab is Australia as a national aggregator. And we sort of on published there. And if this also may occur elsewhere internationally, you might say that this organization publishes this point of truth vocabulary here. It sends a copy over to the search vocabulary Australia or a reference. So it says, not going to send you a copy but I'm telling you that I've got a vocab that I'm interested in. And it might also contribute this vocabulary to some international set of vocabaries. So back to what I said at the beginning of this, we're trying to do as many of these things sort of behind the scenes as possible so that as an organization that actually creates and publishes vocabs. So potentially you have your ways of creating them, you have the ways of managing your vocabs.  And then all of these things you know best case is that you're publishing here and listing there and everywhere that also happens automatically. And we're trying to do as much automated tool as we can research vocabulary Australia has an interface that allows us to interact with it automatically. So we know that this kind of pushing of content will work. We've tested that out already so. So this is where we're up to it's it's it's how many of the points of Simon's paper will tick off a few of them. I mean it'll, it'll, it'll do some of the sort of fair formats and this and that the next thing that there is no guarantee that what we're doing will let you know, ensure the long term governance of an organization to vocabs it will certainly allow them to be listed in certain places, we can assign identifiers like this one to them under certain regimes that are very good identifiers but you know if the organization that actually owns this thing loses interest in maintaining this and this will crumble but we are dealing with organizations at least a few of them have been around for 100 plus years, and they've been creating and delivering content for a long time so there's a good chance I think that the geological surveys and elsewhere will when up and running continue to deliver vocab content for a very long time. So that's my view of this stuff and part of the discussion here is to ensure that other people's views you know do they use get or not or do they have fundamentally different ways of viewing vocabaries and publications on some of those come in because otherwise it's you know, well I'm interested to learn what other people do I suppose as well as saying obviously what I'm doing can't be the only way to do it. Okay, I'll see if I can stop sharing my.